Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 13 2019

• 
  • Nomination Vorsäß Schönenbach, municipality of Bezau in the Bregenz Forest, Vorarlberg, Austria --Uoaei1 04:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support So sharp! --Podzemnik 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of Nithsdale Lodge, Glasgow, Scotland --Podzemnik 04:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of Nithsdale Lodge, Glasgow, Scotland --Podzemnik 04:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior view of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Clockwork of hte Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bells of Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Attic of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Great! --Podzemnik 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Looking through the organs in the interior of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from Yosemite Falls Trail. --King of Hearts 03:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Möchling, Gallizien, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Seven Pandas 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Parish church Saint James the Greater, Gallizien, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Seven Pandas 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Parish church Saint James the Greater, Gallizien, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gothic apse of the parish church Saint James the Greater, Gallizien, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Seven Pandas 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Gallizien, Gallizien, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. FPC! --Seven Pandas 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Entrance of Phyang Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Phyang Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Phyang Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Door in Phyang Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Waterfall in Muret-le-Château, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Bgag 02:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rose window of the Saints Peter and Paul church in Naumburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. --Tournasol7 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good Quality --PtrQs 01:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Refuge de Carol and Ruisseau de Saleix in PNR Pyrénées ariégeoises, commune of Auzat, Ariege, France. --Tournasol7 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 04:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail of the whell of the two-wheeled open carriage at the Castle of Onet-le-Château, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Nuces, commune of Valady, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Bgag 02:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Grade II listed offices dating to the 1840s. --Rodhullandemu 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support The cropped cars spoil a bit, but good quality IMO. --Tournasol7 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Grade II* listed office building in Liverpool, precursor of the skyscraper. --Rodhullandemu 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support The sky seems a bit overexposed, but good enough for QI in my opinion. --Tournasol7 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Solar panels at the Climate Camp Pödelwitz --GPSLeo 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose unfortunate reflection. --Tournasol7 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of the Pollokshields Church, Glasgow --Podzemnik 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Milan Bališin 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cross on the Pollokshields Church, Glasgow --Podzemnik 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Milan Bališin 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Top part of the window on the Pollokshields Church, Glasgow --Podzemnik 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Milan Bališin 19:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A small window on the Pollokshields Church, Glasgow --Podzemnik 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Milan Bališin 19:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nithsdale Lodge, Glasgow, Scotland --Podzemnik 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Milan Bališin 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 50 Pfennig Notgeld banknote of Hamburg (1921). --Palauenc05 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 18:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 2 Mark "Notgeld" banknote of the village Keitum / Sylt (1921).--Palauenc05 17:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 18:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Frost on trees in the winter, place: Vihorlat, Vihorlatské vrchy --Milan Bališin 17:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 18:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sninský kameň in the winter --Milan Bališin 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sninský kameň in the winter --Milan Bališin 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sninský kameň in the winter, view of Motrogon and Vihorlat at sunset --Milan Bališin 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sninský kameň in the winter --Milan Bališin 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ceiling in the Queen room of Palazzina di Caccia of Stupinigi --Paris Orlando 17:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Germany, Greimerath, formerly parisch garden --Berthold Werner 15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 16:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Reichenspitzgruppe (Austria), seen from north --Milseburg 14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better, but IMO OK. --XRay 16:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sesriem Canyon, Sossusvlei, Namibia --Poco a poco 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia --Poco a poco 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 13:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia --Poco a poco 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Impressive series and landscape --Milseburg 14:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia --Poco a poco 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Very nice! --MB-one 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dune in Sossusvlei, Namibia --Poco a poco 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Natural monument "Thousand Years Old Tilia", Reinborn, Germany. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Milseburg 14:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Plaque commémorative de la catastrophe aérienne du Vol Lille-Lyon IT 2611. --Benoît Prieur 10:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Renault EZ-Ultimo, Mondial Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 10:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Porsche 959, Mondial Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 10:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination First Canadian Place, the highest building in Toronto and Canada. --ArildV 10:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Top of the building is a bit unsharp, but for me quality isd high enough for a Q1 --Michielverbeek 10:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior view of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion A very nice photo --Michielverbeek 10:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Clockwork of hte Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Clockwork of hte Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bells of Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Attic of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Clock on the west side of the Erlöserkirche in Bamberg --Ermell 09:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 10:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chapel St. Felizitas, so-called Helenenkapelle near Kemmern --Ermell 09:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 10:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Statue of St.Johannes Baptista in the parish church Mariä Himmelfahrt in Memmelsdorf --Ermell 09:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 10:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mercury Comet 1966 at the Kulmbach 2018 Oldtimer Meeting --Ermell 09:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 10:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Weir on the grounds of Mitwitz moated castle --Ermell 09:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shell of a Thai land snail, Cyclophorus siamensis --Llez 08:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Frýdštejn Liberecký kraj-CZ, view to a living house at the Bezděčínský potok --Michielverbeek 07:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 10:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dalešice Liberecký kraj-CZ, street view --Michielverbeek 07:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panneau de la place Marcel Grillet à Jujurieux (Ain). --Benoît Prieur 06:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. But DoF could be smaller. The background may be better a little bit unsharp. --XRay 07:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Breil/Brigels direction Val Frisal. Environment of the Flembach stream.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 07:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panixersee (Lag da Pigniu) above Andiast. On the road to Lag da Pigniu, view of Pigniu (1301m.)
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Abū l-Hasan Banīsadr, erster gewählter Präsident des Iran in der Universität Hamburg. By User:Christoph Braun --Hanooz 05:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Thiksey Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Statue in Thiksey Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hemis Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Phyang Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Statues of Jesus near Saint Saturnin Church of Saint-Saturnin-de-Lenne, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Town hall of Montbartier, Tarn-et-Garonne, France. --Tournasol7 00:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality for me. But cropping right is perhaps more beautiful.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ophrys × nouletii in Onet l'Église, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Family of Canada geese. --King of Hearts 22:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK for me, though some could complain that the image is a bit soft on the chicks. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Death Valley National Park. --King of Hearts 22:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of the Ukrainian peak Polonina Runa from Sninský kameň in winter --Milan Bališin 21:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sninský kameň in the winter, frost on trees --Milan Bališin 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 16:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tramway tracks on Prospect Pobedy (Chelyabinsk). --IEPCBM 19:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Needs a perspective correction --Trougnouf 21:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
     Done --IEPCBM 12:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 18:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Adoration of the sheperds - Giovanni Battista Crespi --Paris Orlando 09:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    more specific categories needed --MB-one 09:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
     Done thanks --Paris Orlando 09:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Still miss location and location category --Sailko 14:24, 9 February 2019
    They are not mandatory, moreover there are gps data, however it is not polite to interfere in a review of another user thanks --Paris Orlando 16:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    MB-one are you there?? --Paris Orlando 22:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hereford cattle, Big Sur. --King of Hearts 23:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Composition and size not "exciting", but good enough for QI in my opinion. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Madagascar giant swallowtail (Pharmacophagus antenor) chrysalis, Isalo --Charlesjsharp 10:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 19:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Common zebra blue (Leptotes pirithous insulanus), Ankarana --Charlesjsharp 10:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Not sharp enough --GPSLeo 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Entrance of Thiksey Monastery, Ladakh, India --Bgag 01:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The raising of Lazarus - Peter Paul Rubens --Paris Orlando 08:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Crow starting --Dktue 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The bird is unsharp. --XRay 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination South Tufa, Mono Lake. --King of Hearts 05:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Comercial street in Mar Azul, Argentina --Ezarate 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beach in Mar Azul, Argentina --Ezarate 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but composition is not really attractive --Michielverbeek 07:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ponta Negra beach with Careca hill visible in the background --MB-one 12:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    It seems to me like there is too much of luminance. There is a big loss of detail --Podzemnik 15:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
     Done --MB-one 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
     Support I think this is better, thanks --Podzemnik 18:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Burg Spangenberg - Elmsteiner Tal - Pfälzerwald - Rheinland-Pfalz.--Fischer.H 17:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion All contours show a light rim - maybe the result of a heavy CA-correction? --PtrQs 18:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
     Done Thanks for the review.--Fischer.H 16:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for this effort, but apart from some raised mid tones I can still see the bright rim between walls and clouds. Didn't you try to reduce the CA-correction? I've marked an example in the picture. --PtrQs 01:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
     Done File was processed again.--Fischer.H 10:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)  Comment The "rims" observed by PtrQs are sharpening halos from too strong unsharp mask algorithm parameters. They have nothing to do with CA correction. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Johannes Robalotoff: Thank you for this hint - now I can better insult people for using such kinky techniques ;-) The effort was not much, but acceptable now. --PtrQs 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Toronto Express at Quebec City --MB-one 12:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Freight trains at Bahnhof Herzogenburg, Austria. --GT1976 07:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Please check the verticals. --Ermell 08:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 16:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Former building at the former barracks in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Done Sorry, forgotten, I've just fixed some minor issues. --XRay 19:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Good IMHO, though the software edge sharpening party probably wouldn't be too happy with it. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination GAC Trumpchi GM8, Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Too black and lack of details. --Jmh2o 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 16:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Sninský_kameň_(v_zime)_035.jpg

• Nomination Sninský kameň in winter --Milan Bališin 15:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose A beautiful snow sculpture, but the shadowed part is too large for me for Q1 --Michielverbeek 08:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose per Michielverbeek.--Fischer.H 18:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment How does it affect image quality? --Milan Bališin 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Interesting shapes, and so what about the shadow? It's perfectly OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Per Ikan. Shadow parts have full detail. --Smial 10:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support good quality --> QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 21:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas 16:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 18:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Col_Turond_Busc_dala_Gialina_te_Val_Gherdëina.jpg

• Nomination The Col Turond in Val Longia in Gröden - South Tyrol. --Moroder 12:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose One of panorama segments suffers from significant camera shake and needs to be replaced, see notes. --Shansov.net 18:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Comment It's irrelevant at normal image size --Moroder 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
  I sincerely believe that your way of reviewing my candidates is not fair!--Moroder 21:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I know that it can look like this, but in fact I'm being 146% fair here. Please, don't think that I have something against you. I just checked one image at random, found this problem, then decided to check your other big images and (to my surprise) found same problem present in many of them. I took care to download original files and examine them to be sure that it's not a mistake, then I added notes, showing which part of the panorama needs to be fixed. Usually when doing big panorama images without tripod or in difficult conditions, people take multiple shots of each segment to be able to replace it in case of accidental error. New high resolution cameras are less forgiving, and one needs to take account of that, making sure to keep camera stable and choosing faster shutter speed (and choosing good lens is extremely important for small-sensor cameras like Canon 5Ds, for example). Maybe it's your new camera or a rental? I'm sorry if you feel that my reviews are not honest. --Shansov.net 06:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much unsharpness.--Fischer.H 18:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I'd make the same remark as for the others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality --Billy69150 10:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 18:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Steviola_dinviern_Gherdëina.jpg

• Nomination The Steviola peak in Val Longia in Gröden - South Tyrol. --Moroder 14:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support Good quality. --Halavar 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Some parts of the panorama have too much of camera shake and need to be replaced. Also there is a cloning error, see note. --Shansov.net 18:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is no stitching or clonig error, as you call it, in the area you are pointing out because neither has been done in that area. The top is sharp as you can allmost count the needles of the pinetrees --Moroder 21:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I can guess that you are uploading not the same file that you are checking for errors, or maybe you are checking not at the actual size. Stitching error is evident: https://jpegshare.net/images/b9/04/b904ebdb7ed3c1aa8e11a1002183ad04.jpg (100% crops of corresponding areas. Cloning error extends much longer upwards and downwards. --- [Tycho] ^talk 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • The details you are showing are at least 150% size of the image and I can't find the stitching error but anyhow it'is really irrelevant --Moroder 07:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I cropped out those details at exactly 100%, actual size of image. I can ask again: are you sure that you checked your image at 100% scale? How it can be "irrelevant" if that segment of panorama is completely blurred by camera shake? --Shansov.net 19:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, stitching errors or camera shake or focussing errors are flaws, regardless of resolution. --Smial 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Are you serious?--Moroder 07:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure I do. What makes you doubt? --Smial 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

All photos have errors,even the most valuable, and pixelpeepers can find them. The issue is the relevance otherwise QIC becomes just a game with no fun --Moroder 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course images with flaws are accepted at Commons and even can be Valuable, but it's just not QI. The whole point of QI is to select images without technical problems. It's really easy to make technically perfect images, even panoramas: just don't toss in "broken" segments. There is a page with technical requirements for QI and it even have a dedicated chapter about errors that should be avoided in panorama stitching. --Shansov.net 19:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support - More than good enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good enough for QI. Verum 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Shansov.net.--Fischer.H 18:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support @Shansov.net: Re "The whole point of QI is to select images without technical problems," images with flaws are accepted at QIC all the time; corner unsharpness is expected on a wide-angle lens, for example. The question is whether the image can be viewed at a reasonably large size without being able to see those flaws, and the answer is yes for this image. Shrink it down to 24 MP, well more than enough for anyone, and see if you can still find any problems. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @King of Hearts: Yes, but bad segment here is not in a corner, it's right on the subject. And author did not shrink it down to 24 Mp. Some people may choose images with especially high resolution for specific use - outdoor advertising, photographic wallpapers, posters, and would expect a QI image to be suitable for printing, but it will be quite a disappointment because this image can not be used at the resolution provided because of those parts blurred by camera shake. That's the reason why I oppose most of the images in those series. I was quite surprised myself when I saw same error in almost all of the images, don't understand how one can miss that even before stitching... --Shansov.net 16:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - You are again penalizing a contributor for declining to violate the existing prohibition against downsampling. I even suggested recently that since downsampled pictures get approved routinely at QIC when certain users submit them, we should cease this jury nullification and stop pretending to ban downsampling, and my proposal went nowhere, thereby strongly (at least in the abstract) affirming that the rule against downsampling remains in force. It's one thing to engage in jury nullification; it's quite another, and IMO offensive, to actually vote against a photo on the basis that the photographer chose to obey the existing QIC rules. You are really out of line. -- Ikan Kekek 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Okay, let's go back to rules. "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image", "Motion blur should have a purpose, most often to emphasize motion", and I don't see anything about allowing to violate those rules in case of high resolution images, so I assume this is strict "should be sharp", period, not "should be sharp when viewed downsized to ...". Yes, I know that most cameras are not perfect in terms of sharpness, but this image is totally smeared, and this camera is as sharp as it gets for a Bayer sensor. Please, don't use false statements like "vote against a photo on the basis that the photographer chose to obey the existing QIC rules", which is really out of line. I'm opposing this image because it's faulty, not because it was "not downsized". And, by the way, I strongly believe that this image was downsized quite a lot, considering camera resolution and number of panorama segments used. By the way, there is also a stitching error. --Shansov.net 01:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - I take note of your arguments, but you could help avoid accusations that you advocate downsampling by no longer advocating downsampling. -- Ikan Kekek 08:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose In my opinion QI doesn't mean "Image with small quality issues". Even when the size is impressive the image needs to be nearby technically perfect. In opposite to FPC QI doesn't need any wow-factor. The technical claim shouldn´t be second-rate or mediocre. --Milseburg 14:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 16:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 18:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Völkermarkt_St._Margarethen_ob_Töllerberg_2_Pfarrkirche_hl._Margaretha_03012019_5830.jpg

• Nomination Parish church Saint Margaret in Sankt Margarethen ob Töllerberg #2, Völkermarkt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 03:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose I disagree Surreal proportions, the tower appears to have thrice the volume than that tiny nave. --Smial 13:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Support What is one supposed to do here? Leave it uncorrected? --King of Hearts 04:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Question - Are the proportions accurate? I'm not presuming to know. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 CommentThough it is nowadays possible while using super wide angle lenses, and post processing to straighten nearly every architectural photo taken, this does not mean, each of them could be considered "quality image", if the proportions look too distorted or even ridiculous. If someone would take a portrait image with an 114° wide angle lens from 20cm distance, then there would be an outcry from all sides, how horribly disfiguring the picture would be. Many commons photographers argue that verticals must be displayed vertically because the walls are usually vertical, but above all because the architect has drawn his buildings in this way. However, this argumentation only works if perspective corrections are made to a certain extent. For: Did the architect really intend that his church tower should be depicted opposite the main building as enormously as the nose of the poor victim of a super wide-angle portrait would be? I have nothing against appropriate perspective corrections and do them myself, but it must remain appropriate. As a "photographic" reason for my rejection, analogous to the caricaturing wide-angle portrait, it may be considered that the shooting location was unsuitable, i.e. too close, to be able to produce a quality image. --Smial 07:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Ps: Yes, I know that there are already hundreds of architectural photographs on commons that have been compulsively verticalized in a similar way and are regarded as a "quality image". But that doesn't make it any better.Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

•  Comment - Right, but I don't know this church, so as unlikely as it is, maybe it has these kinds of really weird proportions. Do you know this church? -- Ikan Kekek 18:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Weak support I think Smial is right. But, as I interpret other pictures from there, because of the narrowness in the village, there is no way to photograph the whole church from a higher distance out of that direction. Now I thought about if this is a tried and tested fotografic remedy to present the whole church or if a QI is generally impossible from this direction. I tend to agree with this presentation as a QI. --Milseburg (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose zu stark verzerrt --Ralf Roletschek 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ralf Roletschek.--Fischer.H 17:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Außerdem erscheint der Turm zu hell, wie ich es an eigenen Bildern auch schon bemerkt habe, nachdem sie hochgeladen waren. -- Spurzem 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hier ein Foto der unverzerrten Kirche: [1] Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Hier noch eins, schon als QI ausgezeichnet. Warum dieses Bearbeitungsunglück ausgezeichnet werden soll, keine Ahnung, Gruss --Nightflyer 22:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nightflyer: However, these are other directions that are less photographically demanding. Btw, I think "Bearbeitungsunglück" is an undue and insulting choice of words.--Milseburg 09:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Even though my criticism may sound a little harsh, please don't use derogatory language. Johann contributes many excellent pictures to our project.--Smial 09:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Please sirs! I’m enough familiar with the German language to understand that ‘’Bearbeitungsunglück‘‘ is neither „insulting“ nor "derogatory". --Moroder 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Moroder 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Usually I don't like images distorted by "perspective correction", but in this case I checked telephoto images of same subject and it seems that the tower is actually very tall. --Shansov.net 23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry for Smial --Paris Orlando 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Not ideal but matches the guidelines. Always the same problem.--Ermell 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Some CAs on top of the steeple, but given the lens sufficient --PtrQs 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks very unnatural, either the top can be compressed manually in software or this point of view is an impossible good shot, either way that's not a QI to me --Trougnouf 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)  Neutral After looking at the other shots in the category it only looks somewhat unnatural. --Trougnouf (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm on  Oppose.--Peulle 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Peulle Please when you vote update the score, thanks --Paris Orlando 09:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Per others.--Palauenc05 12:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Totally agree with Smial's detailed comment. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Shansov.net and Ermell. --Aristeas 16:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 8 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 18:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)