Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 09 2015

• 
  • Nomination Hedychium 'Dr. Moy' --Ram-Man 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shilin, Yunnan, China: Stone forest, a set of Karst Limestone rock formations. Part of the UNESCO South China Karst World Heritage Site. --Cccefalon 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow. Slight whitish halo around the stones, but nothing that should stand in the way of promotion. Jakec 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lijiang, Yunnan, China: A chinese boy eating a local pastry --Cccefalon 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:53, 07 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Yunnan, China: The sculpture of the tiger, marking the location in the Tiger leaping gorge (虎跳峡, Hǔtiào Xiá) where the famous jump allegedly took place --Cccefalon 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Yunnan, China: Marker stone in Tiger leaping gorge (虎跳峡, Hǔtiào Xiá)) --Cccefalon 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping World Cup Hinzenbach Sun 1 Feb 2015: Katharina Althaus --Ailura 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 07 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping World Cup Hinzenbach Sun 1 Feb 2015: Elena Runggaldier --Ailura 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Isiwal 21:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The gothic parish church of Weißkirchen an der Traun is protected as cultural heritage monument. In September 2014 it was decorated for Thanksgiving. --Isiwal 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality -- Spurzem 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shell of a Nerite, Nerita quadricolor --Llez 20:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Isiwal 21:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Game park near Liten, Czech Republic. By User:Janmanak --Juandev 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, but it's unsharp and the sky is overexposed in places. Jakec 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior of Karina kyrka (church). --ArildV 19:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Villy Fink Isaksen 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Katarina kyrka (church). Södermalm, Stockholm. --ArildV 19:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination First station on the way to the Hill of Rosary of Lluc /Mallorca --Isiwal 18:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from a hill in Leonding to Pöstlingberg in Linz (Upper Austria) --Isiwal 18:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Millennium Cross, Skopje, Macedonia --Poco a poco 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. --ArildV 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Directions plate in the Saxhóll crater, Versurland, Iceland --Poco a poco 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --ArildV 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nikulasargja canyon, Þingvellir National Park, Suðurland, Iceland --Poco a poco 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Moutain range Priel in Totes Gebirge in January --Isiwal 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, useful and informative --Milseburg 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Figures of the carillon in the flèche of a house in Graz/Austria --Isiwal 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aster novi-belgii. Fall Aster. a nice selection.
    Famberhorst 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful and QI -- Spurzem 18:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kungsholms kyrka (church). --ArildV 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A ČD Class 751 arrives from Meziměstí station (Czech Republic). --Daniel Holý CZ 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilted, needs perspective correction, CA and overexposed sky, cannot be QI due to the sky, sorry --Poco a poco 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Prussian milestone near Mülheim-Kärlich besmeared by vandalism -- Spurzem 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn  Comment Lots of Chromatic Abberation. I left a notes. This can be fixed. --Halavar 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    You are right; thank you. I tried to eliminate the CAs but I am not convinced. I withdraw. -- Spurzem 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 42. Jakec 15:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination w:Mugser Run. Jakec 15:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful and good quality -- Spurzem 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Phalasarna, Crete. --C messier 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Catholic church of Rethymno, Crete. --C messier 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Part of the Serpieri mine complex, near Lavrio, Attica, Greece. --C messier 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Inflorescence of Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) cultivar. --Bff 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Racing sidecar on base of the BMW RS 54 built since 1953 and presented at the AvD-Oldtimer-Grand-Prix in the paddock of Nürburgring in 2011 -- Spurzem 12:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 12:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination PCAPH vs CERN CC - 20140911 - batting --Pleclown 11:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose overexposed main subject --Christian Ferrer 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination USO-FCG - 20140913 - Ruck --Pleclown 11:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --ArildV 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Stone Bag" Gorge on the Yupshara River. Ritsa Relict National Park, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Lacking sharpness. I don't think this is fixable. --Code 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Stone Bag" Gorge on the Yupshara River. Ritsa Relict National Park, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Stone Bag" Gorge on the Yupshara River. Ritsa Relict National Park, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 12:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Blue Lake. The road towards the lake Ritsa, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline unsharp, sorry! --Hubertl 12:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Market in Baranów Sandomierski --Jacek Halicki 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --ArildV 19:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of the assumption of Holy Virgin Mary in Nysa 1 --Jacek Halicki 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Towers of the church leans to the left. --Halavar 11:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 13:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Halavar 17:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of the assumption of Holy Virgin Mary in Nysa 2 --Jacek Halicki 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality --Halavar 11:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of the assumption of Holy Virgin Mary in Nysa 3 --Jacek Halicki 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Saints James and Agnes Basilica in Nysa --Jacek Halicki 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. At the first glance, it seems distorted, but it isn´t. Therefore QI for me --Hubertl 12:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Blue cheese from raw milk of Jersey cattles, aged 5 to 8 weeks Origin Toggenburg, St. Gallen - Maître fromager affineur Willi Schmid --Hubertl 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI for me. --C messier 14:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail of the statue of Archduke Carl of Austria, Vienna Austria. --Hubertl 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Minor CA (top left), but ok --Poco a poco 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)  Done Thanks for review!--Hubertl 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Weberbach 75 --Berthold Werner 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination D Stock at West Brompton. Mattbuck 08:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination HMS Warrior. Mattbuck 08:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wood Wharf and "Emelina". Mattbuck 08:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Halavar 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 166208 at Ealing Broadway. Mattbuck 08:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Location Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. Frosted oak (Quercus) leaf on frozen lake.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Location Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. Incident thaw.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Nice. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:33, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sandakan, Sabah: SIDA EXPRESS coach waiting at the temporary Long Distance Bus Terminal at Leetat Industrial Estate in Sandakan, next to Labuk Road. --Cccefalon 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Limau-Limauan, Sabah: "Jalan Parapat Limau-Limauan" --Cccefalon 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Code 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sikuati, Sabah, Malaysia: The former missinary station pf Basel Mission where the german priest Karl Rennstich worked --Cccefalon 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:29, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination District Kudat, Sabah, Malaysia: A road kilometer sign at the Malaysia Federal Route 1, which is part of the Trans Borneo Highway. --Cccefalon 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kg Pahu, Kota Belud, Sabah: Rice farmer, removing soil from the paddy by dragging it in a coir fabric --Cccefalon 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:27, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Restaurant “Drübbelken”, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Former Town Hall, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment There are some hotpixels (or strange red stars) and a big lens flare. Can be fixed, I think. --Code 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
     Fixed Hot pixel ... It's fixed now. Thanks.--XRay 12:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
     Support Good quality now. --Code 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old town hall, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Town hall/Office building, Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jagdschloss Granitz, Binz, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany --XRay 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose burned out clouds --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Freestone rocks of the Sattnitz near Kohldorf, Ebenthal, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:17, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose a bit blurred, unsharp and overexposed --Christian Ferrer 17:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View at the High Gloriette and the castle ruin Leonstain, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:10, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from the peninsula at Maria Woerth, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:06, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sailing boat near Villaggio del Pescatore, Duino, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy --Johann Jaritz 03:00, 06 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp, sorry --Jacek Halicki 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Facade details of the neue Burg, Vienna --Hubertl 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Rjcastillo 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Schwarze Heidelibelle - Sympetrum danae, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 21:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI for me. --Bff 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Notgeld - Zehn Million Mark from Trier, Germany (1923), designed by Fritz Quant --Palauenc05 21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. but there is a red Category left. --Hubertl 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Correct Hubertl, this sub-category of Trier must be added, there are already 128 of other towns. --Palauenc05 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Tower of Belém, Lisboa, Portugal. View from north. Alvesgaspar 19:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of Belém, Lisboa (detail) -- Alvesgaspar 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 09:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jerónimos Monastery, main facade. Lisboa, Portugal. Alvesgaspar 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Sky could be less noisy, but still overall good quality. --Code 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Footpath in Swaledale --Kreuzschnabel 10:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn *  Comment Blurrish area, see notes. --Hubertl 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed this lens seems to have a problem with the bottom right corner, thanks for mentioning. I somehow didn’t notice that --Kreuzschnabel 22:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    Withdrawn, Sharpness is really an issue here, focus has not been chosen favourably too. --Kreuzschnabel 06:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Krenkeltal Rothaarsteig in Sauerland. Marking hiking trails.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Overall good quality with exception of the bright parts between the branches: They all have a black dot inside, it looks like frog spawn. Anything you can do about this? --Cccefalon 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    * I withdraw my nomination I get drawn with the spawn not leave.--Famberhorst 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Winterly peninsula, Maria Woerth, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 04:16, 05 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Done Corrected version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 07:26, 05 February 2015 (UTC)  Comment very nice but a bit too blue, and even if not necessary for a promotion a little clarity and vibrance would improve it IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)  Done Corrected version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 03:41, 06 February 2015 (UTC) Support well composed --Christian Ferrer 11:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Winterly promenade on Hans-Pruscha-Weg, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:44, 05 February 2015 (UTC)  Done Corrected version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 08:11, 05 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. QI for me. --Hubertl 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Votive Church in Vienna --Linie29 14:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Very nice (and unusual perpective) but it is slightly tilted counter clockwise. --Tsui 04:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
     Done Linie29 09:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion --Palauenc05 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great crested grebe adult female,Haubentaucher (Podiceps cristatus) --NoRud 10:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI for me. --Hubertl 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Germany, Trier, St. Paulin, head stone --Berthold Werner 09:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Isiwal 20:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lutynia --Jacek Halicki 09:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment I think that image leans inward. I left a note. --Halavar 17:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 20:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Halavar 20:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Whitby harbour. Mattbuck 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)*  Comment its a bit dark, it would be QI for me --Hubertl 08:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
     Done. I've also tried to adjust the white balance - I had the camera accidentally set on some weird setting that day, and have never been quite able to satisfactorially correct it. Mattbuck 23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, better lighting --Hubertl 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Samaria Gorge. I know there's some chroma noise in the shadows, I hope it's acceptable.--C messier 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    Strong CA and left crop can be improved (post) Poco a poco 19:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Done --C messier 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    Better but not totally gone, see notes. Poco a poco 20:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Done --C messier 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Farmhouse Cheddar, Isle of Mull Cheese --Ailura 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support More DOF would be nice, but still QI for me. --C messier 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination L’Etivaz --Ailura 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --C messier 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sound designer Dietmar Zuson at the Austrian Film Awards --Tsui 05:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Isiwal 21:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Breda, ancient port --Michielverbeek 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)*  Comment Good quality, but its tilted ccw. (0.6°)--Hubertl 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Done Is it better like this? --Michielverbeek 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC) *  Support Yes, QI for me now --Hubertl 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --Hubertl 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Veldhoven-Oerle, windmill --Michielverbeek 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)*  Comment Good quality, but its tilted ccw. (1.3°)--Hubertl 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Done Is it better like this? --Michielverbeek 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)*  Support QI for me now! --Hubertl 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A detail view of the peak of the Hallgarter Zange, one of the highest mountains of the Rheingau. The distinctive observation tower is also visible. --DXR 16:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Question have you de-satured some colors, because there is only a very little blue cast, a choice maybe? anyway it need a bit of contrast or shadow+clarity IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Christian. No desaturation, but I have reprocessed and added a bit more punch. --DXR 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Support fascinating picture, this could be a painting --Christian Ferrer 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 1 Churchill Place. Mattbuck 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Good quality, but some white spots are to remove. --Steindy 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    What do you mean? Mattbuck 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose I think they were talking about the overexposure on and around the letters --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    It really detracts enough for opposition in your view? Mattbuck 20:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) after another few minutes by looking at full resolution, the letters are the main feature and yes it attracts attention so it detracts enough sorry --Christian Ferrer 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensual review

Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg

• Nomination Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris (by Diliff) --Paris 16 11:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Withdrawn It's well balanced in color and exposition, for me, it's no easy in this condition to have a good picture --Cesco77 09:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  This your sixth nomination of the day. Sorry. --C messier 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  It's a good picture, while Paris 16 shouldn't nominate more than five images per day, I'm sure this was an oversight on their part. Mattbuck 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose As we all know, that Diliff's pictures are exceptional good, he owns an exception on the rules? I don't think so. If Paris wants to renominate another day, it's all right. But this photo has no space in CR. --Cccefalon 05:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• I added a withdrawn too close it quickly. Paris 16, feel free to renominate it. --C messier 13:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Austrian Sportspeople of the Year 2014 winners 16 Anna Fenninger.jpg

• Nomination Anna Fenninger, Austrian Sportswoman of the Year --Tsui 05:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:58, 03 February 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Shows motion blur in the eyes. --Mattbuck 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very good quality for me. -- Spurzem 10:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Main focus on the trophy is imho not wrong. --Ailura 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 00:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 07:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support ok good quality for me--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Red-eared slider,Rotwangen-Schmuckschildkröte (Trachemys scripta elegans).JPG

• Nomination Red-eared slider,Rotwangen-Schmuckschildkröte (Trachemys scripta elegans) --NoRud 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Code 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  
• weak  Oppose I don't agree. It's still noisy and not quite sharp enough (primarily the head). Simultaneously it looks oversharpened and that leads to posterization as far I can see. --Hockei 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Agree with Hockei. Also, there are lots of reddish CA on the tree. --Halavar 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Green shield bug, Gemeiner Grünling, (Palomena prasina).JPG

• Nomination Green shield bug, Gemeiner Grünling, (Palomena prasina) --NoRud 11:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose low quality, low size, small DoF, in part blurred --Christian Ferrer 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice shot but poor quality. Sharpened noise in background, looks like low JPEG quality, main subject oversharpened. --Kreuzschnabel 15:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Northern pintail,adult male Spießente (Anas acuta) Standing on ice at glorious blue sky.jpg

• Nomination Northern pintail,adult male Spießente (Anas acuta) Standing on ice at glorious blue sky--NoRud 10:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline  Support QI -- Spurzem 11:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose head out of focus, overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  Please look at the photo of Castle Combe Toyota racing above and to your vote from December 2013. -- Spurzem 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• The fact that I am wrong on an image (quite possible), does not improve the quality of this one. Thanks for checking my rewiews, two pairs of eyes are better than one. :) --Christian Ferrer 12:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Christian --Hockei 16:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Head shows motion blur, overexposed. Mattbuck 23:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose the head is out of focus or blurred. --Alchemist-hp 09:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Sonneratia alba 06375.jpg

• Nomination Sonneratia alba --Vengolis 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Very good quality.--NoRud 09:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  The description must be improved --Christian Ferrer 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
   Done -- Vengolis 02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 05:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6014.jpg

• Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten --Hubertl 00:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose nothing really in focus --Christian Ferrer 18:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  
• Should go to discussion. --Hubertl 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   Code 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Nonnenturm_--_2014_--_3390.jpg

• Nomination Nonnenturm in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support Good quality. --DXR 07:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Rather soft for only 6.5 mpix, the spire is blurred, and it has been taken in very unfavourable light with all the haze about. --Kreuzschnabel 03:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this is fog and imo this in itself has EV. Not the most beautiful image, sure, but not actually bad. I also don't think that the sharpness is inacceptable, imho we should stay reasonable here and not expect prime sharpness for QI. --DXR 12:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

True, but I took the image size into account here. I would excuse the softness on a 16 mpix image or greater, but I expect a QIC of only about 6 mpix to be crisp sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 17:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's see what the others think. --DXR 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the discussion. Fog is a kind of natural soft focus. So the image must be soft. That's not dependent to the resolution. --XRay 06:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

•  weak support It´s foggy. Yes. Though QI for me. Because it´s a natural phenomenon. It happens sometimes on an septembermorning. --Hubertl 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   Code (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Kreuzbergl Giordano-Bruno-Weg 1 Volkssternwarte 28012015 338.jpg

• Nomination Observatory on Kreuzbergl, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Bad sharpening haloes. --Mattbuck 22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose per Matt. Clearly oversharpened. As for composition, I’d crop out the bottom third entirely. --Kreuzschnabel 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened and too high saturation. -- Smial 09:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (2).jpg

• Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) *  Comment Sorry, your actual review rate is 27:1 --Hubertl 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline There isn't anything wrong with this picture. These comments should not intimidate others into withdrawing. I'm promoting. Ram-Man 02:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  I swear I commented on this before.  Oppose - lack of sharpness/fine detail, noticable posterisation in the background. --Mattbuck 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
   Done Thanks you. I' ve corrected the background. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral lack of fine details and of sharpness indeed, but something prevents me for to oppose on this one --Christian Ferrer 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Business_Coupe_de_1930,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_02.JPG

• Nomination Chevrolet Business Coupe of 1930, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Could you not remove the information-plate? So it is not good for me. -- Spurzem 13:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• What is the benefit of that? Poco a poco 21:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   Code 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Heuliez GX 317 n°2024 FIL BLEU Vénien.jpg

• Nomination Bus in Tours --Billy69150 10:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Overexposed sky, tilt/perspective. --Mattbuck 11:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Sky OK for me. We can not have only images of midnight trains. -- Spurzem 12:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Mattbuck --Christian Ferrer 05:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Matt. @Spurzem: Blown sky could have been avoided here by shooting the coach in sunlight instead of shade. No need to wait till midnight. And besides of that, it’s still tilted. Reconsider supporting tilted images please. --Kreuzschnabel 07:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «F0 Sherwood Hall.jpg

• Nomination Sherwood Hall. Mattbuck 09:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Insufficient quality.Not very sharp --Livioandronico2013 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • While the sharpness is not perfect, I think it's good enough for QI. --Mattbuck 22:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't --Livioandronico2013 07:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Livio. Not sharp enough for an image of less than 10 mpix. CA visible (windows, sides of van) --Kreuzschnabel 07:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And yet #File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (3).jpg is considered sharp and has supports. Insane. I have sharpened it and done away with CA (although I couldn't see any until at least 150% zoom). Mattbuck 22:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not solved, sorry. Windows on the right show sharp green/purple edges now, so does the van and the posts beyond. Image looking definitely oversharpened. I suggest to return to the previous version and hope for other reviewers to have more mercy. While trying myself, I found that it could do with a bit more green and less red :-) --Kreuzschnabel 04:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Are you KIDDING me? I zoom into max on firefox and I can see barely any colour there whatsoever. I already reduced the red and you wanted it sharpened! This has got ridiculous if this photo, which while not my best is certainly QI in my book, is attracting so much hatred but absolute shite is being promoted with no one even caring. Mattbuck 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
        • There, fine, completely reworked. Mattbuck 08:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Talking about hatred? Have you caught the Steindy/Hubertl virus now? I was considering you a quite reasonable contributor so far. These discussions start to suck. I am not re-reviewing this image any more, so calm down. --Kreuzschnabel 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
          • • Du solltest wirklich die Vorschaufunktion verwenden, bevor du Schwachsinn abschickst, Kreuzschnabel. Ich werde es dir schriftlich mitteilen wenn ich meine, dass du mir das Wasser reichen darfst. Wichtigtuerei ist ein verbreitetes Phänomen, speziell dort, wo man sich das ohne echtem eigenen Können erlauben darf.--Hubertl 16:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
          • @Kreuzschnabel: I apologise, I just find the double standards which seem to be at work recently a bit ridiculous. It's not your reviews I question, but there seem to be two schools of QI thought developing, one with significantly lower expectations than the other. I am happy that we belong to the one with high expectations, but seeing my images declined when others which seem far worse are promoted to almost unanimous acclaim is galling.
            • Accepted, no hard feelings. This is becoming a real nuisance. There are those who lower QI standards, and there are those who appear (I cannot prove this of course, only suspecting) to support each others nominations regardless of quality (or lack of it), spoiling the QI idea entirely. --Kreuzschnabel 17:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I think this image is QI, although you are correct there are issues with it. I apologise for my behaviour with this nomination. When I get home I shall brighten it as Spurzem suggests and then leave it. Mattbuck 14:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral In my opinion it would be sharp enough but it seems unnatural dark. Of course it is a difficult lighting to get the houses bright enough without overexposed other parts. -- Spurzem 09:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Also now I don't think that the image is good. -- Spurzem 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support for the new version. For me, sharpness is ok as well as lights. All details in the shadow are clearly visible. Might be the image will look more attractive with more brightening, but IMO the photo is reflecting the bluish shadow atmosphere of a winter morning when the shadows are still long and the sun is not strong enough to shed enough light between the houses. --Cccefalon 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as cccefalon --Hubertl 08:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• weak
   Oppose this version is the best and I can support it, the last one is oversharpened (artefacts) sorry --Christian Ferrer 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose --Palauenc05 12:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Strandbad Woerthersee-Architektur Detail 11012009 63.jpg

• Nomination Lantern at the „Strandbad“, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. I just have to promote, you know why! ;-) --Hubertl 04:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question May I ask what that means? We judge images by their quality here, we never "just have to promote". Even if this is showing your own house, please stick to the facts (at least this image is tilted). --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ach Kreuzschnabel, misch dich nicht in Sachen ein von denen du keine Ahnung hast.--Hubertl 12:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Dann hilf doch bitte meiner bemitleidenswerten Ahnungslosigkeit auf, indem du freundlicherweise meine Frage beantwortest. --Kreuzschnabel 13:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose noise and oversharpening artefacts and the shadows is too dark --Christian Ferrer 09:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened (sharpened noise visible), sky very noisy, and I am quite sure the wall is not supposed to lean to the left. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilt, noisy, overprocessed. -- Smial 10:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Wörthersee Metnitzstrand 11102008 43.jpg

• Nomination Platanus x hispanica on Metnitzstrand, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed, a lot of burned out areas --Christian Ferrer 09:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposure on the foliage, very much noise (partially sharpened, thus overprocessed), plus tilt to the right. Please check these basic issues before nominating. It’s very easy to make sure the verticals are vertical in the picture, and it’s easy to fix that. --Kreuzschnabel 07:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I can´t believe it! Overexposed with some burned out areas? This is the afternoon light directly from the west. Not more. There are no burned out areas at all. Make yourself clear, what burned out means, Christian Ferrer. If you want to play the crusader because of bad mood and temper, try it somewhere else and not here! Because I supported Johann Jaritz? I proved it whith Lightroom and Photoshop and with an calibrated monitor. And I know how to use these programs since 1989 as a teacher for digital graphics. The way you present yourself during the last days is close to mobbing, I guess!--Hubertl 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment the tilt is exactly 0.2° cw. That doesn´t mean, that it is nothing, but no reaseon for opposing. It is this precisely the 1.800th part of a complete circle! As I said before: Even in nature you will find harsh light and types of overexposings. Therefore, sunglasses were invented! Langsam macht mich eure Überheblichkeit richtig wütend! Gehts noch! Leute vertreiben? Ist es das, was ihr wollt? Lebt euch in den Exellenten Bildern aus, aber hier verhaltet euch gefälligst im Sinne dessen, was Wikimedia ist und ausmacht! --Hubertl 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment The tilt is clearly visible and easily fixable, there’s no need to get upset about it. I didn’t measure it, I just saw it. And that’s what judging images is about: the visual impression it produces. – Ich versteh diese Reaktion wirklich absolut nicht. Wenn mir einer sagt (und ja, das passiert durchaus), mein Bild sei gedreht, dann nehme ich es, drehe es aufrecht, lade es neu hoch und freue mich darüber, daß es jetzt noch besser ist als vorher. Was soll denn dieses Fußaufstampfen? Und natürlich gibt es in der Natur brutale Kontraste. Jeder Fotograf weiß aber, daß man sich bei der Aufnahme darum kümmern muß. Manches läßt sich wirklich nur mit HDR eindrucksvoll einfangen, gerade Stimmungen bei tiefstehender Sonne im März oder Oktober. Fotografisches Können besteht dann unter anderem darin, ein gut belichtetes Bild abzuliefern. Und mal ganz allgemein: Wer keine aufrichtigen Meinungen zu seinem Bild hören möchte, der soll es nicht zur Diskussion stellen. Natürlich ist dieses Bild nicht schlecht, die Stimmung ist schön. Aber hier bewerten wir technische Qualität, und da fallen die Drehung und die Überbelichtung nun mal in die Waagschale. Das ist keine Überheblichkeit, das ist der Sinn von QIC. Überheblichkeit ist eher, anderen hier vorschreiben zu wollen, wie sie zu bewerten haben. --Kreuzschnabel 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment meine Reaktion bezog sich darauf, dass du wegen 0,2° Tilt ein contra gegeben hast. Ich hätte mir erwartet, dass das über einen Kommentar erledigt wird. Dazu kommt, dass ein 1800tel - gemessen am einzigen Teil, welcher ein Anhaltspunkt sein kann (und der dazu noch selbst schief stehen könnte!) - unter der Wahrnehmungsschwelle liegt und nur im messbaren Bereich liegt. Noch dazu, dass die Einschätzung von Christian Ferrer, das Bild hätte ausgebrannte Bereiche, in keiner Weise zutrifft. Das grenzt eher an Wichtigtuerei --Hubertl 08:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich lese dir meine Kontra-Begründung gern noch mal vor, sie steht ein paar Zentimeter weiter oben: Overexposure on the foliage, very much noise (partially sharpened, thus overprocessed), plus tilt to the right. Ich habe also keineswegs wegen der (leicht behebbaren) Drehung mit Kontra gestimmt, sondern wegen der (nicht behebbaren) Überbelichtung und des Rauschens. Wenn du schon Argumente aus der Luft greifst, dann doch bitte aus einer besseren. Danke. --Kreuzschnabel 15:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, come on. I must admit that I have not been using graphics programs since 1989 (for reasons outside of my control :D), but let's not kid ourselves into the statement that there are no burned out areas at all. Some parts are clearly 255 brightness and significant areas are brighter than 250, and those areas probably shouldn't be (and show no detail apart from JPG artifacts). It's debatable whether this is reason enough to decline but no reason to go mad. The point of QI is that we can discuss how important some defects are and it is not crazy or completely unreasonable to argue that there are too many burned out areas here. Should we be surprised that the DR is not amazing at ISO 560 on a older D90? No. Could the image quality have been better if shot at a slower shutter speed but ISO 200? Probably. I have many images that I love but which are not QI, so what? --DXR 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Obviously substantial knowledge of digital image processing has been forgotten by Hubertl since 1989. But he has apparently learned a lot in friendly dealings with colleagues. The photo has in 11.7% of the pixels a red value of 255, at 2.5% in the green channel, and even in the blue channel, there is a distinct peak in the value of 255. This is commonly known as clipping, thus overexposure. -- Smial 14:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not only overexposed but also blurred. Alvesgaspar 16:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Iris_sibirica_'Ruby_Wine'_(2001-0068*A).JPG

• Nomination: Iris sibirica 'Ruby Wine' --Ram-Man 03:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 04:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose DoF a bit small --Christian Ferrer 09:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is enough for a partially rotten flower. Only one petal is prominent here which is in focus. Jkadavoor 15:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose Per Christian --Hockei 18:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --C messier 13:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Vierge_à_l'Enfant_assise.jpg

• Nomination Vierge à l'Enfant assise, ivoire, XIIIème siècle - Musée du Louvre, --Siren-Com 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 23:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose overexposed and too much artefacts --Christian Ferrer 09:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Insufficient quality. --DXR 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 21:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Columbine_Aquilegia_'Blue_Butterflies'_Flower_Front_2120px.jpg

• Nomination Aquilegia 'Blue Butterflies' --Ram-Man 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose Bad lighting, the bottom half is in shadow and the upper is overexposed with burned out areas --Christian Ferrer 09:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I see no lack worth mentioning as to lighting. For me QI. -- Spurzem 11:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Complicated lighting. Jkadavoor 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Question What means "complicated lighting"? Jkadavoor --Hubertl 08:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Light from top making shadows in bottom. So we need to either overexpose top or underexpose bottom. The white petals make it more difficult/complicated. :) Jkadavoor 08:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Sankt Primus Bildstock im Steinbruch 28012015 266.jpg

• Nomination Wayside shrine at the quarry of St. Primus, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 09:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose until corrections. The CAs on the cross and on the snow should be cottected before a promotion, the snow is also a bit too blue --Christian Ferrer 10:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting image and good quality -- Spurzem 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Some clipping in small areas, but not very disturbing in 100% view. @Christian: In contre jour lighting situations image areas which are in the shadow must be blueish. That is natural if the sky is blue. @Johann: Your camera seems to tend to slight over exposure, as can be seen with several nominations. Try exposure bracketing, if available, or set exposure correction 1/2 f-stop darker. Perhaps it has an automatic contre jour compensation, which works too strong. -- Smial 10:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:St. Lukas Kirche München.jpg

• Nomination St. Lukas, Munich (by AnjaSuess) –Be..anyone 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
• What is that strange artifact to the right of the tree leaves and the left of the "turret"? It looks like a ghost. Ram-Man 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment There is also a dust spot, I left a note. Additionally it seems to be tilted ccw. However, I think all these issues are still fixable. --Code 05:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment, ghostbusters, if you're talking about the vertical artefact flagged as aliasing by Code, wild guess, a net against pigeons? Maybe the photographer could fix it, I won't touch a JPEG, my XnView is basically a viewer ;-) –Be..anyone 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Support Looks generally ok to me. --Mattbuck 11:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Who set this on "promotion"? The dust spot is still there! --Code 14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  

• Which dust spot? --AnjaSuess 16:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  

•  Comment I removed the dust spot, but as last editor of the picture I am not going to vote. --Code 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Generally OK to me, pity the photographer didn’t move a bit more to the right so the last two foreground leaves would not collide with the building. --Kreuzschnabel 07:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   Code 21:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:14-08-06-cerdanyola-RalfR-001.jpg

• Nomination Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain, Carrer Mossèn Cinto Verdaguer --Ralf Roletschek 10:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion  Comment A little tilted, and too much sky. Review disturbing thing in the foreground (right corner).--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)  Done --Ralf Roletschek 13:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
   Support Good for me.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)--
•  Oppose Noticable lens flare, fogging/blur at top right, too tight a crop generally. --Mattbuck 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I added this to the wrong photo. However I would suggest sharpening and painting out whatever that is top right. Mattbuck 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl 12:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-Cambodge Ta Prohm (17).jpg

• Nomination le temple Ta Prohm, khmer construit au XIIe siècle à la demande de Jayavarman VII à Angkor au Cambodge..PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)*  Comment If you want to get your pictures promoted, do the same with the pictures of your collegues. As a matter of respect! --Hubertl 22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  thank you! OK, thank you for this invitation.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality, a interesting shot, even when there are some blurred areas on the left bottom. --Hubertl 20:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose dicrurbing unsharp/blurred area at bottom left --Christian Ferrer 09:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC
   Done It's now sharpened, and blurred area at bottom left are more sharp. Thanks for your review--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  

 Oppose - low JPEG quality IMO. Areas blurred and oversharpened. Mattbuck 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

•  weak oppose per Matt’s first point. While the bright areas are of good quality (the overexposure towards the top is a pity but not that bad), the darker areas show considerable amounts of JPEG artifacts and some chroma noise. I guess there has a JPEG been brightened up here. Would have been much better to rework this from the raw file. I will change my vote on an optimized version. --Kreuzschnabel 07:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done I imported a new "optimized" version. Maybe is it better?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Better. Still not the best lighting but good enough IMHO. Mattbuck, will you re-review the latest version too? --Kreuzschnabel 18:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support that is an improvment --Christian Ferrer 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:St-vincent sur jard , la côte (3).JPG

• Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Right side rather blurry, general lack of sharpness. --Mattbuck 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC) < /br >

 Done cropping and improvement of the picture--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Clearly tilted ccw, two lens flares (or very strange clouds?) visible in the sky. --Code 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment tilt has been adjusted.- The sky was with these strange clouds, the clouds of the upper floor, between 6000 and 12000 meters are cirrus. They look like long white filements, and are composed of ice crystals. ... it's still why I made these photos--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a note to what Code is describing. I think they are lens flares. --C messier 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. --Code 18:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes.- I had not noticed these lens flares.- I have erased them. Is that better? --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment It's still tilted. --Code 05:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

•  DoneTilt correction (+0,30)--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ok,  Support although the sharpness could still be better. --Code 12:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   Code 22:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:St-vincent sur jard , la côte (1).JPG

• Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
• Clearly tilted --DXR 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)< br >

•  Comment Thanks for your note. Tilt is corrected -1 °.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality now --DXR 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  

New version looks strange... perhaps the others are right, sorry. --DXR 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Needs sharpening IMO. --Mattbuck 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  

•  Done more sharpeness in the image--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Still not sharp enough, I don't think that this is fixable here. --Code 09:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   Code 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:ESC2014_-_Austria_15.jpg

• Nomination Conchita Wurst from Austria performing her song in the first dress rehearsal for the second semi final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. --abbedabb 18:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Coyau 11:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment For me too tight crop below. And what about the spots at the left and the right side? Are they parts of illumination? -- Spurzem 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop too tight on the bottom IMO. --Code 09:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Many dusts in the background, and the bottom of the photo is overexposed.- I fear it may not be fixed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Look above. -- Spurzem 19:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Sharpness not at 100000% optimum, but rather good shot regarding the circumstances, and the full resolution. -- Smial 14:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me.--Hubertl 23:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   Code 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Landratsamt Marburg-Cappel 3.jpg

• Nomination District Office in Marburg --Hydro 07:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Overall good quality. Can you please get the walls rectilinear? - yet, the are leaning out. Thanks, --Cccefalon 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  

Thank you, I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 09:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Ok now --Cccefalon 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment Actually the right side is leaning out. --Mattbuck 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I see no lack. QI for me. -- Spurzem 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Livarot_(fromage)_06.jpg

• Nomination Livarot (cow's milk cheese) --Coyau 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Sharpness is not good around left top corner. --Zcebeci 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  
• What about this crop? --Coyau 11:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  Still needed a abit more (approx 200 px) crop at top. --Zcebeci 12:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment Low DOF is in my opinion not a problem here, but the too soft lighting. Soft light is ok when depicting the whole object, but in macro mode it leads to low contrast, dull colors, and "flat" appearance. -- Smial 14:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, the DoF and contrast combine to make this too weak and indistinct. -- Ram-Man 03:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 11:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Corvette_Targa_de_1971,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG

• Nomination Chevrolet Corvette Targa of 1971, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Autos mit Weitwinkel sind böse aber die Qualität stimmt. --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Comment Gehört aber ein bisschen ansprechende und zweckmäßige Bildgestaltung nicht auch zu einem Qualitätsbild? Ich erinnere mich, dass hier Fotos wegen zu knappen Zuschnitts oder wegen eines leicht verzeichneten Gebäudes im Hintergrund abgelehnt wurden. Ich bitte um weitere Meinungen. -- Spurzem 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because of short focal distance the car is unrealisticly distortet. Further the pillar at the left would need a perspective correction. -- Spurzem 11:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

   Comment New version with several improvements (the focal length is hard to change, though) Poco a poco 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Agree, the crop is too tight as well -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 21:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (115).jpg

• Nomination Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Plasser & Theurer overhead lines service vehicle. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion Purple CA on not copper areas --Christian Ferrer 07:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
   Not done  Oppose Mattbuck 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The slight CAs should be eliminated but they are negligible. -- Spurzem 17:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The slight CAs should must be eliminated before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 09:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Unlike many other images from this series, I consider this to be good enough and the CA small enough not to disturb. -- Smial 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The weakest point for me is the framing, which is also part of the QI criteria: it really needs some space ahead. Alvesgaspar 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support, a good "men at work" photo, I don't miss what I can't see on the left, but get that not everybody was at work. –Be..anyone 09:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Jamides celeno 01591.JPG

• Nomination Jamides celeno --Vengolis 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support At f/4 @ 250 iso the DoF is very shallow. This should have been taken at f/5.6 @ 500 iso, or even f/8. That said, for QI it's just enough. --Ram-Man 02:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think all the purple areas are CAs and are black in reality --Christian Ferrer 12:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment The colors look like original but the submarginal areas on forewing's apex is unsharp. --Zeynel Cebeci 08:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose too much no natural purple (fringe) areas on the on the head and legs, see this and read this --Christian Ferrer 09:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose A nice composition but the wings are out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 21:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (3).jpg

• Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
• Weak  Support Good quality. A little bit unsharp. --XRay 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Very unsharp! --Mattbuck 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

   Done sharpening in the image.- Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  While mildly better, this is still a long way from the sharpness I expect from a QI. Mattbuck 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Take care not to oversharpen, but I think good enough. Ram-Man 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem 23:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment - There's also a dust spot top left. Mattbuck 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a dust spot what you see and it is negligible. -- Spurzem 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Mattbuck. Additionally there are some dust spots in the sky. --Code 15:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Thank you, I corrected the dust spot top left, that I had no seen. . --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I can forgot the sharpness level, but I think there is a beginning of Posterization in the sky, I don't know if it's fixable. Anyway the sky is not ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Nice light and composition but lacks detail and yet looks oversharpened. I think this is due to diffraction caused by f/13. --Kreuzschnabel 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (4).jpg

• Nomination: la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
• Weak  Support Good quality. Smoke on the right is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Tilted (see roof), too blue. --Mattbuck 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  DoneThanks, I' ve corrected inclination of 2°. Please care to take another look?-- Pierre André (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support A bit blue but QI for me -- Spurzem 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Considerable noise in the dark areas and I don't think the tourists add to the composition. Alvesgaspar 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is as a bluish veil in the upper half of the image --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bluish image can't be a QI. Sorry, --Alchemist-hp 09:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Alchemist-hp 09:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Hue_Vietnam_Citadel-of-Huế-19.jpg

• Nomination Hue, Vietnam: Yellow painted wall within the Imperial palace in Hue --Cccefalon 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion  Oppose Sorry I do not think this picture is QI--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  Declining a photo should come with an explanation, which of the photographic rules are not met. --Cccefalon 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Too much yellow, and too less contrast!--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  

Dear, when someone sends a photo to discussion, then please do not play god and revert it to decline. And I find it very funny to complain, that a yellow wall has too much yellow. --Cccefalon 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Info It is a detail view of the yellow painted house, where I recently uploaded a detail view of the windows. Asking for more contrast in an almost evenly painted background image cannot be resolved. So far, I do not comply with your reasons for decline. --Cccefalon 10:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Neutral It's quite hard to say anything about the picture's quality when it's just a yellow wall. However, I thought about it quite a while and I'm not sure whether it's within the project scope. What's the encyclopedic value of this picture? Maybe it can have a value, but I'm actually not capable to imagine which it could be. I will however change my vote to support if you can explain this to me. --Code 09:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Comment The photo is contributing to the collection of backgrounds in WikiCommons. As Commons aims to provide suitable photos not only for the sister projects but for all kind of professional and bussines purpose, there is a need of good backgrounds. This is reflected by a huge choice of categories which deal with backgrounds. It is not mandatory, that a QI has an enczclopedial value. --Cccefalon 07:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support Well then... wieder was gelernt. --Code 15:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Neutral given the explanation made-- Pierre André (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks quite unsharp to me. Even if it is not, that is a minus for such a simple and easy to repeat picture. Alvesgaspar 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Zizula hylax in Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

• Nomination Zizula hylax (Tiny Grass Blue) Jkadavoor 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Joydeep 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  I disagree: Relatively large blurred area on flowers on left side. --Zcebeci 15:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand :) Jkadavoor 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose DOF not enough and oversharpened. That leads to posterization. --Hockei 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp and bad composition--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:A-20126_Erzherzog_Karl-Denkmal_-_Heldenplatz_Wien_-hu-_6326.jpg

• Nomination Archduke Carl Ludwig Johann Joseph Laurentius von Österreich, in the background the Church of the Minoriten. --Hubertl 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  I disagree: In front, the main subject of the photo is not clear and blurred technically. --Zcebeci 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• As part of the composition, I think that the statue in the foreground should be in focus, but even if it was chosen deliberately to be out of focus, it dominates the picture and IMHO it detracts more than it adds. --C messier 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The „blurred“ foreground is part of the highly successful composition. --Steindy 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose a beginning of good idea for a composition, however the blurred areas are too dominant --Christian Ferrer 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  Its not a bug, its a feature! Don´t believe, that I´m an idiot. --Hubertl 13:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Underexposed, bad composition. Assuming the depicted building in the background with nice sharpness is the main subject of this image, it is way to small and partly hidden behind the unsharp foreground object which seems to be intended as a framing. A frame must not hide essential parts of the main object. -- Smial 14:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose First, I agree with other reviewers that the image is generally too dark, plus an unnatural reddish tint of the sky. Then, though the church tower (?) is nicely sharp, the dominating unsharp monument does not look good at all against the sky, there are strange artifacts around all the edges. Altogether it does not appeal to me. And, just to make sure: None of these statements mean the photographer was an idiot. This is nothing but my honest opinion about this very image. --Kreuzschnabel 07:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Interesting idea, but I don't think it works. Mattbuck 23:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose distracting blurred foreground. --Alchemist-hp 09:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Alchemist-hp 09:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Glaucium_sp._08.jpg

• Nomination Grand-flowered Horned Poppy (Glaucium grandiflorum). Bolkar Mts. TR --Zeynel Cebeci 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC) *  Comment Sorry, your actual review/nomination rate is 0:18 --Hubertl 23:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support The lighting could be a little "harsher" for more contrast, but it's more than adequate. --Ram-Man 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Done, thanks for your comments --Zcebeci 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose artefacts in all the image --Christian Ferrer 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• still  Neutral Nice but oversharpened (sharpened noise visible all over the leaves). Ought to be re-done. --Kreuzschnabel 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Maybe you can improve it, then I'll take another look. --Hockei 19:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   Code 21:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Berwick-upon-Tweed MMB 33.jpg

• Nomination Viewpoint near Berwick-upon-Tweed. Mattbuck 06:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support QI for me. --Halavar 09:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too low DOF. Really sharp is only the front of the photo. --Steindy 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  The middle-distance is still perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment The background being so unsharp is disturbing me, too. Not convinced yet. Sharpness still decreases generally towards the right. --Kreuzschnabel 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment there is an unsharp area in the right (see note), can work a bit on it? --Christian Ferrer 11:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  That this is getting complaints for being unsharp boggles the find when images where the picture is just plain out of focus get promoted by others. Still, I have sharpened the area. I guess I got the reviewers who actually look at the photo! Mattbuck 21:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  My english language is limited and I understood norhing. --Christian Ferrer 05:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Comment Mattbuck: In the past there have rather often been images which you took with this lens, which were unsharp on the right side. I had also already recommended to step down aperture to at least f/8 with this lens, or to send it for service because it may be decentered. The flaw can not be seen on every photo, but on several. -- Smial 14:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support for the image I will say ok --Christian Ferrer 06:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The unsharpness of the background is ok for me, as it is part of the aerial perspective. Alvesgaspar 19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Camaricus formosus 07109.JPG

• Nomination Camaricus formosus --Vengolis 17:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
   Oppose The area of the main subject is too small (relative to the total area of the image). --Bff 13:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
   Support Not an issue; see File:Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera Leaf Underside Red Mite 2700px.jpg. Jkadavoor 07:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
   Support per Jee --Christian Ferrer 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I accept the small size of the spider(?) as part of the composition, but I can not accept the heavy reflections caused by direct flashlight. Not fixable. -- Smial 14:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree. Alvesgaspar 19:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The subject is too small --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 00:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (124).jpg

• Nomination: Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Fresh with thermite welded rail. Removal of the welding form. --Steindy 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
•  Oppose WB too purple IMO --Christian Ferrer 06:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done removed magenta and overexpose parts --Hubertl 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Here overexposition was not an issue and the saturation was ok however for the white balance, I prefer this kind more natural --Christian Ferrer 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, yes, it was the WB! --Hubertl 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment The WB is ok now, but you also changed the exposition and saturation, the both are better in the original version --Christian Ferrer 05:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Rework by far overdone and image completely messed up. First version is best, though somewhat overexposed. --Smial 10:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Rather noisy. Mattbuck 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, interesting motive. Enough for QI --Hubertl 05:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  

 CommentI doubt it is allowed to promote own reworks. Please discuss. --Smial 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment In case of having reworked a nomination, I consider myself co-author and abstain from voting. --Kreuzschnabel 05:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don´t know what the problem is: simple technical corrections are not co-authoring at all, we don´t promote people, we assess pictures. Or do you want to punish people, because they don´t have professional software? Or do you want to foil the idea of helping hands of Wikipedia? Or maybe, its simply personal because of me, @Smial: ? --Hubertl 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(writes the guy, who prohibits any changes to his own uploads: "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the Author." - a limitation that does not really match common practices. --Smial 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

• • You name it: We assess pictures, we do (usually) not edit them but leave this to the author (sometimes edits go the wrong way as you see in the contributions here saying this image was better in the original state). And of course you’re making yourself co-author by performing optimizing measures to an image (at least by contributing your personal opinion of what the image should look like). In case the author wants his picture optimized and does not himself have the skills and/or tools to do so, there’s the photography workshop to consult. QIC is the wrong place for that. --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.

English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.

Regards --Steindy 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support new version. –Be..anyone 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a good framing (with the unfocused foreground at left) and not a good image quality (noise, lack of detail), probably owing to a high ISO setting or small sensor. It would be nice to see the Exif info, so we can try to figure out the reasons for the noise. Alvesgaspar 19:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 00:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Le lac chambon (5).JPG

• Nomination Le Lac_Chambon dans les Monts_Dore Puy-de-Dôme--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Poor contrast; too much clipping. --Daniel Case 06:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  
  

@Daniel Case:  DoneThanks for your note, I've uploaded a new version by cropping the image and contrast enhancement - Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose - water splotches on the lens, bad artifaction. Mattbuck 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Engels-Hof_12.jpg

• Nomination: Communal housing project buildings “Engelsplatzhof” (“Engels-Hof”) at Friedrich-Engels-Platz 1-10, Brigittenau, Vienna, Austria --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Dark, too tight a crop at the bottom. --Mattbuck 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• I made the photo lighter. ok now? --Thomas Ledl 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose color noise, tight crop, strange vertical banding in the sky --Christian Ferrer 17:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose tight crop on bottom, strange vertical banding in the sky. --Alchemist-hp 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   Code 21:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpg

• Nomination: Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support QI for me --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose Noticable CA. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  Copper is reddish. It then oxidises to green. It does not however turn blue or purple. Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.

English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.

Regards --Steindy 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: With special thank to Mattbuck

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   Code (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpg

• Nomination: Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Auger and sheet piling are ready to build. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Poor composition IMO. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  

   Comment Not withdrawn. Not poor composition IMHO, only poor comment by Mattbuck. It's his problem, when he don't know what's to do with the equipment. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  

   Comment Would you please keep your comments related to the photo rather than the editor? Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.

English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.

Regards --Steindy 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

With special thank to Mattbuck (If you do not find anything else, it is just a „poor composition“...)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   Code 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpg

• Nomination: Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB Railjet is passing on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose Quite noisy, some CA. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
   Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose Problem with the magenta CA. I left a notes. Also, sky is little bit overexposed. All these problems can be fixed. --Halavar 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
   Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.

English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.

Regards --Steindy 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very good image though the slide CAs which should be eliminated. -- Spurzem 15:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
•  weak support but its QI for me.--Hubertl (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Extensive noise, affecting detail. Alvesgaspar 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 00:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus Crealis Neo 18 n°6206 Théâtre des Arts ASTUCE.jpg

• Nomination Bus articulé de Rouen --Billy69150 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support - Again Rouen, impressive bus. –Be..anyone 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Needs tilt/perspective correction, CA removal on the badge. --Mattbuck 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

   Done --Billy 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  CA on the badge still needs correction. A bit of sharpening of the bus would probably be good too. Mattbuck 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support! The image is OK. -- Spurzem 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) @ Mattbuck: I think it is good no and we should not look for possible lacks at any price as we say in German. -- Spurzem 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose until CAs corrected --Christian Ferrer 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpg

• Nomination A ÖBB-Railjet passes Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Please take care of CA first. Mattbuck 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  

   Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  

   Comment I am quite aware that catenaries are made of copper (albeit I work for London Underground and we don't have much use for overhead electrification). However given that copper oxidises green, it doesn't explain the numerous purple areas. Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Mattbuck for the CAs, but also the DOF is too small for this composition and more than the half of the image is blurred and unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.

English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.

Regards --Steindy 22:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as others. --Hubertl 02:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Christian Ferrer --Livioandronico2013 08:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral For me everything about this image is QI, except for the white sky. Would it be such a bad thing if we required nice skies in most landscape photos? However, I won't go against consensus on this one, so it's neutral for me. -- Ram-Man 13:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry guys but, for me, there are several flaws making this image short of quality to become a QI. One of them, not mentioned yet, is the overall noise. Alvesgaspar 19:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)