Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 17 2014

• 
  • Nomination The Würzburg combined heat and power station --DXR 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A SBB Re 460 [...] Please note that the irregular pattern on front of the locomotive is actually dirt and not noise. --DXR 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Plaque on the south side of the fountain in Aspang Markt (cultural heritage monument), Lower Austria --P e z i 19:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The 15th-century gatehouse at Broughton Castle, Oxfordshire, with the main bilding in the background (by User:Decan) --Nev1 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Oversharpened over over-denoised. Definitely not QI --DXR 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The 16th-century St Mawes Castle (by User:Cbichescu) --Nev1 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Strong CA, blurred areas, vignetting, dust spots --Poco a poco 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Municipal office Aspang Markt, Lower Austria --P e z i 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Door with ornated pediment with a stone sign of a caulker (1620), front view, Saint-Simon, Charente, France. --JLPC 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --P e z i 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The marina as seen from bridge of Kerisper. La Trinité-sur-Mer, Morbihan, France. --JLPC 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --P e z i 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Refurbishing of the town hall beffrey Angoulême, Charente, France. --JLPC 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --P e z i 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture in Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhavnagar --Bgag 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --P e z i 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture in Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhavnagar --Bgag 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Valle de Viñales. Cuba --Ivan2010 16:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 05:30, , 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Los Cancajos (La Palma) -- MJJR 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Bgag 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Levashovsky Avenue in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI. --Bgag 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Levashovsky Avenue in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Levashovsky Avenue in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of Saint Anne parish church in Ustroń, Poland --Halavar 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 05:30, , 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination gray tubes fungus (Bjerkandera adusta) in It Wikelslân.--
    Famberhorst 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Grand Theatre in Poznań, Poland --A.Savin 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ballet School in Poznań, Poland --A.Savin 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old Market in Poznań, Poland --A.Savin 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Florstein 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Albarracín, Teruel, Spain --Poco a poco 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Albarracín, Teruel, Spain --Poco a poco 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Castle, Ateca, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Castle of Maluenda, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --P e z i 21:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Saint Joseph and Jesus as a child, wooden statue by Ferdinand Demetz ca 1905 St. Ulrich in Gröden - Ortisei Val Gardena Italy. --Moroder 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality --Halavar 13:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chris Ashton dribbling with a ball during warm-up session of Heineken Cup match --PierreSelim 12:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Eduardo Menezes et Caruschka 2--Pleclown 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI --Rjcastillo 12:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Denis Lynch et Coulisa --Pleclown 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Digital kitchen scale with an egg ;-) --Smial 12:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pompeii, view from the theatre to northeastEnglish: Pompeii, view from the theatre to northeast --Berthold Werner 09:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI --Rjcastillo 12:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Rathausufer" called riverbanks in the Old Town of the German city Düsseldorf. --Anıl Öztaş 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 172005 at Gospel Oak. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose unfocused --A.Savin 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jervaulx Abbey. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 42968 at Kidderminster Town. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 170630 at Rugeley Trent Valley. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 150s at Starbeck. Mattbuck 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI --Rjcastillo 12:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination American windmill. Location: De Alde Feanen.--
    Famberhorst 06:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shell of an Ezo Abalone, Haliotis discus hannai --Llez 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mèze, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 05:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Autignac, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 05:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mourèze, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 05:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Joshua Tree National Park, California, USA --XRay 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Volkswagen in San Diego, California, USA --XRay 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Lacking sharpness? --Berthold Werner 09:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose blurred, indeed --A.Savin 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination San Diego Pier Café in San Diego, California, USA --XRay 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Car in San Diego, California, USA --XRay 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hoverflies (Simosyrphus grandicornis) by Fir0002 01:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Very impressive picture (and it is FP for this reason) however size is below 2MP (~1600x1000) which is below our requirements for QI. --PierreSelim 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Adam Mickiewicz Theatre in Cieszyn, Poland --Halavar 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 05:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old dairy factory --Baykedevries 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. --Tonto II. 09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cserépfalu village and Bükk mountains, Hungary --Pudelek 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mezőkövesd, Hungary - train station --Pudelek 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. Sorry. The geo position is missing and the main object is very soft. --XRay 16:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination House in Galician market square in Skansen, Sanok, Poland --Pudelek 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sikhara of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhavnagar --Bgag 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --A.Savin 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gate of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhavnagar --Bgag 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cayambe 07:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Houses (one of them slightly tilted) and street at Le Pô, Carnac, Morbihan, France. --JLPC 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cayambe 07:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Malsaucy lake (under the moonlight) --ComputerHotline 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Another image of moving stars. IMO it's QI. --XRay 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ein Bokek. Dead Sea. Israel. --Staselnik 16:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose blown whites --A.Savin 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aphrodite's Rock, Cyprus, panorama--Anna Anichkova 15:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose unsharp, sorry --A.Savin 15:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
     Donenew variant + correction, +sharpness--Anna Anichkova 18:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Still unsharp, not fixable I think --A.Savin 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ina Spanier-Oppermann, North Rhine-Westphalian SPD-politician and member of the Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia --Martin Kraft 10:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dietmar Brockes, North Rhine-Westphalian FPD-politician and member of the Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia --Martin Kraft 10:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stratford station. Mattbuck 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support A little bit noise, but IMO still QI.. --XRay 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ivy Quainoo at a concert in Gloria Theater, Cologne, in January 2014 --Achim Raschka 18:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. Nice Photo but imo too noisy for QI. Feel free to put on discussion --Moroder 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dating rubber stamp --Smial 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Too much noise and missing DoF. (f/8, ISO 3.200) --XRay 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    I also decline because this reason.--Tonto II. 09:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination USB flash drive with write protection switch --Smial 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    Same here.--Tonto II. 09:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sign at the Historic Route 66 near Amboy, California, USA --XRay 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    At least 5 dust spots in the sky Poco a poco 18:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
     Fixed Thanks for your advise. All dust spots I've found are removed. --XRay 07:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality now --DXR 14:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but still 3 slight spots (notes added) Poco a poco 16:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
     Fixed Thanks for your very good eyes. I haven't seen these three dust spots and thanks for your notice. It was very difficult for me to find the dust spots. Now they are removed.--XRay 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Just as a hint: You will find more if you try to bump up the contrast to "stupid" levels and suddenly they will be everywhere ;-) --DXR 22:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Gosau, Upper Austria Draceane 21:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad CA, fine apart from that--DXR 22:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bottom station of Dachsteinbahn I, Upper Austria Draceane 21:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Visible CA --DXR 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ateca Town Hall, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 11:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality but skewed quite badly IMO --DXR 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Elfbergen Gaasterland. Walking route information.--
    Famberhorst 06:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    Whites are too bright Poco a poco 11:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
     Done Kleine correctie.--
    Famberhorst 16:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    I fear that it was overexposed and the correction just made it grey...Poco a poco 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I guess I do not get it done. The pole was very white.--Famberhorst 14:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    I preferred the original version. Current version has little colour depth IMO. Mattbuck 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Done reversed.--Famberhorst 06:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination Riksdagshuset (Parliament House) in Stockholm. --ArildV 09:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Comment Underexposed ;-) --Moroder 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn I don't think so. Its a night photo.--ArildV 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)  Comment The image is on the the middle (middle range) of the tonal curve (histogram). Why not expand it to the higher and lower range (increse contrast) which makes it more readeble and at the same time it does not loose the night shot character? --Moroder 17:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Moroder, it's QI, but it could be a lot better. Mattbuck 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I will upload a new version later.--ArildV 12:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Male and female Wild Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) on frozen sea --Urmas83 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sure about this one - image mostly out of focus, and ducks don't make a good enough focal point. Mattbuck 21:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC) To be honest, I'm not sure eighter. --Urmas83 15:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Thai long tail boat at Ko Phi Phi --Urmas83 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline I'm not sure I like the composition here. Mattbuck 21:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park --Nemo5576 06:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment IMO the image leans to the left.--XRay 08:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    Washed out IMO. Mattbuck 19:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
     Comment BTW: The english description is missing.--XRay 17:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Abel Korzeniowski at FMF byVetulani 01.JPG

• Nomination Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski. --Francesco 13 20:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Noise over there, but aceptable --The Photographer 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Not really sharp, and I think the colours are dubious. Weak  Oppose. Mattbuck 21:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsufficiant white balance. Somewhat too soft due to wide open aperture. Noise is acceptable. Can probably be enhanced by rework from Raw file. -- Smial 15:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Poznan 10-2013 img11 Jesuit College.jpg

• Nomination Former Jesuit College in Poznań, Poland --A.Savin 15:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Overprocessed. --Smial 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  It's not overprocessed, it's an HDR image. --A.Savin 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  Ok, so it is an overprocessed HDR image. -- Smial 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I tend to agree with Smial--Jebulon 14:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, chromatic aberration, yellow channel satured --The Photographer 19:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment In detail: Main problem is the very unnatural appearance. The sky is darker than its own reflections on the cars, and the facades of the buildings are getting darker in the upper parts than in the lower. Additionally the strong brightening in the dark parts of the image produces massive noise, i.e. in the surfaces of the black cars. I'm the least one who would decline an image because of too much noise, if high ISO is necessary to get a good shot under difficult circumstances (stage photography, sports etc.), but if you brighten ISO100 shots partially by 4 f-stops those parts will look noisy like ISO1600. There are also many chromatic artifacts i.e. in the traffic signs and at edges at the buildings, probably also due to tone mapping. HTH. -- Smial 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I've never been happy with HDR (my HDR images) (btw it gives the image a strange blur as to this one), a pity mayby you could work on one of the single images in a "conventional" way, the composition is very good imo --Moroder 17:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Redland railway station MMB 16.jpg

• Nomination: Redland railway station. Mattbuck 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review  Comment The image needs perespective correction. Please.--XRay 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  I don't know I can really, and on reflection I'm not sure this is QI anyway. Mattbuck 19:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
   Comment Let's give the image to discussion.--XRay 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:USB-3.0-Typ-B-Stecker -- 2014 -- 1709.jpg

• Nomination Ein Stecker für USB 3.0 des Typ B. --Anıl Öztaş 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Near edge ooF/blurry, DoF too shallow, strange artifacts --Kreuzschnabel 10:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe F5.6 wasn't the ideal aperture for this kind of shot, but is the rear part of the cable so important? The image should show the plug. Which artifacts do you criticize? --Anıl Öztaş 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the near edge (of the plug), not about the rear cable outlet. Artifacts are around most of the edges (which are unsharp). --Kreuzschnabel 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose DoF too small, see right side of the near part. --Dirtsc 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose At least the blue connector parts should be sharp. --Tuxyso 08:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Gloucester railway station MMB 36 43070 43301.jpg

• Nomination HSTs at Gloucester. Mattbuck 11:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline dark image not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  Brightened. Mattbuck 21:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the left train is too blurry. I understand that it is moving, but then a shorter shutter time would have helped, which appears to have been well possible when seeing that the picture was shot at ISO 100. --DXR (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

==

• Nomination A turtle with an unproportional big head as a plushie. --Anıl Öztaş 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Very nice, but - sorry - not sharp enough (f/6.3). --XRay 13:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  Mh, I just saw after your message, that the focus was set on the rear eye of the turtle. Too bad, I didn't notice while taking the picture. --Anıl Öztaş 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Swinsty Reservoir MMB 01.jpg

• Nomination Swinsty Reservoir, Yorkshire. Mattbuck 11:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose - dark image, poor composition image not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  It was dark and miserable. The light is correct IMO. Mattbuck 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  After suggestion, I have changed the colour balance. Mattbuck 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 06:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support The branches of that tree are somewhat disturbing, but this is a matter of taste and i won't decline therefore. Good photos don't need in any case bright sunshine. Technically ok and atmospheric colours. -- Smial 14:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «B9 West India Quay.jpg

• Nomination: Canary Wharf at night. Mattbuck 12:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Review
•  Oppose blurred image not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  Blurred?! Mattbuck 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good, only small burned areas. But I think this is unavoidable. --Dirtsc 16:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Heron Quays DLR station MMB 03.jpg

• Nomination The skyscrapers of Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline dark image, poor composition not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  Brightened. Mattbuck 19:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose In opposite to my vote on the image of Swinsty Reservoir, I think, such extreme dull lighting conditions are not adequate for architectural photography. -- Smial 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 19.jpg

• Nomination: East Midlands Parkway. Mattbuck 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review Insufficient quality. Sorry. It is very unsharp on the left. --XRay 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  I disagree. Mattbuck 19:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support acceptable, not unsharp but a bit noisy --Christian Ferrer 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Winschoten, partycentrum Vrijheid foto1 2012-09-01 17.25.jpg

• Nomination: Winschoten, partycenter in monumental building NL --Michielverbeek 22:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Review Strong noise reduction but completely understandable for a G10 --The Photographer 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
   Oppose unsharp, blown whites --A.Savin 21:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Alsterschleuse_Fuhlsbüttel_Neubau_Südseite.jpg

• Nomination Construction site of the new locks at the river alster in Hamburg-Fuhlsbüttel. --Dirtsc 12:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose almost half of the picture is in shadow, which is disturbing along the handrail at left. The strange thing at bottom right ruins the composition too, sorry.--Jebulon 20:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  I made a new version (cropped and with brighter shadows). So lets see, what a CR will bring. --Dirtsc 19:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Lagarto_(Sceloporus_mucronatus),_Zona_arqueológica_de_Cantona,_Puebla,_México,_2013-10-11,_DD_05.JPG

• Nomination Lizzard (Sceloporus mucronatus), archeological area of Cantona, Puebla, Mexico --Poco a poco 12:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Promotion dark image, poor composition not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  What? The lizzard is almost black and is well exposed, the composition is actually fine to me, but THAT'S NO ARGUMENT FOR QIC --Poco a poco 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Support Somewhat dark and somewhat too small DOF, but ok as is. --Smial 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Head is in focus. Excellent shoot --The Photographer 15:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Visalia_Bus_Transit_Center_Partial_view_2013.jpg

• Nomination Partial View of Visalia Bus Transit Center --Tuxyso 08:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion  Comment Difficult. There is only a part of street lamp on the right and a lot of shadows. May be another another opinion would be helpful.--XRay 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Usually it is required to have two different opinions to change to Discuss. I see no problem with this image. I find the partial lighting interesting and the shadows are not that dark (compared to other successfull QI shots here). --Tuxyso 07:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support nothing to much disturbing IMO --Christian Ferrer 19:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Górnośląski_Park_Etnograficzny_DSC_8187.jpg

• Nomination Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park --Nemo5576 06:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion  Comment IMO the image is very green, but it may be QI.--XRay 08:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Green lighting makes green images. Looks natural to me. ;-) -- Smial 15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Rievaulx Terrace MMB 02.jpg

• Nomination Rievaulx Terrace. Mattbuck 11:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose dark part is too dark, centered composition is uninspired. I ask for a discussion, please,--Jebulon 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support maybe the shadows a bit dark, acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support A small amount of brightening would help, but ok as for Christian. -- Smial 15:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality: the darker parts of the photograph do not bother me much. A question about the file description: is "ugly building which is completely out of place" a personal opinion or is this a regionally distributed term for this building? --High Contrast 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kreta_-_Bucht_von_Malia1.jpg

• Nomination Crete: Bay of Malia --Taxiarchos228 17:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment curved horizon, stitching issues on the bottom right corner and on the sky. --Iifar 18:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • the curved horizont is easy to correct but the little curve is IMO for such a panorama ok, have checked the corner, can't see stitching issues --Taxiarchos228 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment varying sharp and blurry frames are clearly visible on that corner. --Iifar 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • which is not really a significant problem IMO --Taxiarchos228 19:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose until those issues are fixed. --Iifar 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

a curved horizont is not a issue, it's a matter of taste. the image was shade down. --Taxiarchos228 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Puente_de_París,_Andorra_la_Vieja,_Andorra,_2013-12-29,_DD_01.JPG

File:Puente de París, Andorra la Vieja, Andorra, 2013-12-29, DD 01.JPG

• Nomination Paris Bridge, Andorra la Vella, Andorra --Poco a poco 09:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Promotion  Oppose dark image, poor composition not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  It is a night shot and the compostion is IMHO fine, but even if it were boring would be still ok for QI --Poco a poco 13:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support QI --Christian Ferrer 19:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As far as I know Poco a poco does not use HDR (as he has said plenty of times to me) :) I guess, the hightlights had been reduced and became slightly gray. I would suggest to keep VERY bright light rays very bright and not gray - you cannot recovert details there. But nonetheless the photo is QI for me. --Tuxyso 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me --High Contrast 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tuxyso 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Iris_pseudacorus_LC0339.jpg

• Nomination Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus), Draisdorf, Germany --LC-de 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Not so good, the other photo of the Iris is much better --Uoaei1 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are better pictures" is not a valid reason for a decline in QI as there could be many QI per subject. Please stick to the question, if this is also QI.... --LC-de 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is good. Nice shot. --Dirtsc 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support No complaints regarding technical quality --DXR 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jean11 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Ziarno na fotografii analogowej.jpg

• Nomination Grain on Analogue Photography as an Expressive --Halicki 22:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose This is not the right place for this kind of nominations --Poco a poco 22:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  

 Support I disagree. Neither in [1] nor in [2] I can find criteria to decline the image. There are exactly two issues with this photo: It is black&white and it has strong film grain, but this is the subject of the image. Exposure, composition, lighting, sharpness, size, no jpg-artifacts - all is fine. --Smial 10:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment what should we evaluate here? Where is composition, lighting or sharpness? --Iifar 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Poco a poco --Archaeodontosaurus 08:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Nil_manel.JPG

• Nomination: The_flower_of_a_Nymphaea_nouchali (water lilly) --Aathavan jaffna 12:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review I added a cat and adjusted some features (brightness, curves,...) in order that this image fits at least the basic conditions, but considering the composition and the size (1,920 × 1,080), I’m not sure that it will reach the threshold for QI. Other opinions?--Sputniktilt 13:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jirnsum, kerk foto1 2011-04-24 10.55.JPG

• Nomination: Jirnsum, church NL --Michielverbeek 21:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC))
• Review  Comment Perspective correction would be nice.--XRay 08:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC) new version Thanks, better like this? --Michielverbeek 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
   Comment I think another opinion would be useful.--XRay 08:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm afraid the bell tower is leaning to the left.--Jebulon 20:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, the bell tower is leaning. Yes, the author did a significant correction, but not enough to make all lines straight. Yes, its not easy for an image like this (total view of a church with tower) to become a QI given the actual rules. ;-) I would say, this is a QI, but I know, that a lot of reviewers would deny this, because of not-parallel verticals. And if you set all verticals parallel, the tower would look far higher than it is in reality. --Dirtsc 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 18:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Edificio_en_construcción_frente_al_río_Saigón,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_03.JPG

• Nomination Building under construction next to the Saigon River, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 10:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Opposepoor composition not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 11:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • ??? poor composition this is not FPC, and yes, this is a boring encyclopic shot of the building, but that is no reason to decline a QI --Poco a poco 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    •  Support Of course composition is also a criterion for QI. But I don't see any problems here preventing it from beeing QI. It is not really a harmonic and nice one and therefore will never be FP, but it depicts the subject well enough to be QI. --LC-de 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Composition in terms of not having an unfortunate crop, but a candidate shouldn't be rejected for being uninterersting, that was my remark, Alberto is using this argument frequently Poco a poco 15:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support good, composition is a relevant argument only if it is very disturbing, and here it's not --Christian Ferrer 11:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As for Christian. Composition alone should never be a reason to decline a QI, because this is much a matter of taste. Can of course be used as an additional argument for thumbs up or thumbs down. -- Smial 15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Lake Windermere MMB 91.jpg

• Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 10:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Opposepicture too dark and devoid of details not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 11:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's too dark or devoid of details. Mattbuck 13:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 11:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Composition too much centered, I don't need so many empty water...--Jebulon 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support OK. It is an image of a lake, so you have to expect a lot of water on it. --Dirtsc 17:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good catch. I like the composition. --High Contrast 20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:鹿港施進益古厝.jpg

• Nomination Shi Family Abode, Lukang. By User:Husky221 --Ahonc 23:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion In my understanding of that photo, the family shrine is the center of the composition. However, this part is not really sharp and the colours and details are washed out. Can you work on that part again, please? --Cccefalon 11:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think it's ok. Mattbuck 13:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Keleti_fények_....jpg

• Nomination 'Eastern lights...' - Budapest Keleti (Eastern) Railway Station, Budapest, Hungary. By User:Németh Tibor --Ahonc 23:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Please remove magenta CA and add a little bit denoising. --Cccefalon 11:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  I don't see any CA, and think noise is ok. Mattbuck 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support acceptable --Christian Ferrer 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a pity. Great composition and lighting, but heavy oversharpening, and burnt highlights in essential parts of the image. Sorry. -- Smial 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Smial, real pity though. --DXR 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:SuruBog.jpg

• Nomination Bog lake in Suru Bog --Urmas83 18:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  Too blurred in full resolution. Please resize.--NorbertNagel 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion  Comment I refuse to resize. If you don't like the full resolution, then you have always the opportunity to look it at screen size. --Urmas83 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
   Comment I have to second Urmas83. We always ask for the highest resolution. Asking for a lower resolution is a step to the wrong side. --Cccefalon 23:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  OK, but its too blurred for QI in my opinion.--NorbertNagel 20:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Just curious what other think. --Urmas83 15:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support just ok for me --Christian Ferrer 11:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality --High Contrast 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Ramona_Pop_(Martin_Rulsch)_1.jpg

• Nomination Ramona Pop, Berlin politician (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and member of the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (as of 2013). --DerHexer 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion Eye part slightly overprocessed, it looks artificial. Can you reduce the sharpening there a little bit? --Cccefalon 13:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  I agree it's generally oversharpened, but I think it's acceptable  Support. Mattbuck 13:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jean11 21:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «P2 River Thames Typhoon Clipper.jpg

• Nomination: Typhoon Clipper on the Thames. Mattbuck 12:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 12:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
   Oppose It's a nice picture, but a big area of the subject is in shadow: Noise, chromatic noise (IMO), poor detail. The background has (IMO) poor detail. Not QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 13:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as Lmbuga. Couldn't you play a little with curves ?--Jebulon 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Jean11 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Nowa_Ruda_Nadrzeczna_2_-_klatka_schodowa.jpg

• Nomination: Staircase in XVII-century building in Nowa Ruda, Nadrzeczna Street. By User:Jar.ciurus --Ahonc 23:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review
•  Oppose It's not exactly a photo of the staircase but an artists impression of the staircase after applying some fancy filters. In my opinion this should be clearly pointed out in the description of the photo. As long as there is no appropriate tag, I will vote against that photo even when it was promoted in the WLM contest. Plus there are no EXIF data; I consider this to be a minus point in the assessment. --Cccefalon 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality to me, your explanation is no reason to not promote IMHO. --Poco a poco 11:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  Ok, lets discuss if missing EXIF data and fancy filter orgies are really what we want at QI assessment. --Cccefalon 11:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  Your statements are contradictory, is the problem the missing tag or the picture itself? I am no fried of overprocessed pictures, but I don't think that it is ugly in this case. Poco a poco 14:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It is exactly a photo of the staircase. I've just used Sigma 10-20/4.5-5.6 lens and that's all! No other 'fancy filters', no 'fireworks', just some curve adjustment layer to highlight very dynamic and light full of contrasts. Some areas are overexposed and I wanted them to be like that. Missing EXIF? Is it MANDATORY? I've saved it in 'save to the web' mode. --Jar.ciurus 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't think the photographer have the right to vote for his image, it's not FPC --Christian Ferrer 10:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentYou are right: The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator’s. So it is still 1 vs. 1 --LC-de 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree, Jan is not the nominator, but the author Poco a poco 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me. Loads of noise, but it drows in the details. Contrast adjustment may appear a bit harsh but so do flashes. --GMLSX 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Torkilstöten_December_2013_03.jpg

• Nomination Small road and mount Torkilstöten in Torkilstöten, Ljungdalen. --ArildV 01:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Image looks a bit underexposed, but it may be fixed. --Shansov.net 05:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • underexposed for a photo taken 01:38 am?--ArildV 07:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but it's clearly underexposed. You can use longer exposure or higher ISO or bigger aperture or take picture at daytime --Shansov.net 08:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for your very advanced photography lesson. Extremely unnecessary of course, and a very poor substitute for answering why you think the image is underexposed? If you claim that this night shot is underexposed, you must be able to tell what is too dark in the picture. Are you saying that the sky, the snow or the trees are in fact brighter in reality in middle of the night?--ArildV 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• weak  Support Underexposure for a night shot is something like a bad joke :) Quality is OK, but the blurr at the bottom right is not so nice. --Tuxyso 09:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment It's nonsense talk, that it is underexposed. More disturbing is the bright area in the foreground which attracts the attention and is very blurry. I would propose to crop it. Also, there is a blurry red spot, which might derive from a waterdrop on the lense (I made an annotation). There is a lot of motion blur in the branches of the trees. --Cccefalon 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for note. I think the red light/spot comes from an outdoor lamp on a cabin, above the light is what looks like a snow-covered roof.
  • I understand the comment about the foreground but I think a crop would destroy the balance of the image.--ArildV 14:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose but it was not an easy decision. The exposure is good and the sharpness in the center of the image is also good. Overall a nice shot, the small red area does not bother me. But… all near objects are unsharp, what is very disturbing. Why didn't you use f/5,6 or more and a longer exposure time (as you did it with 30 s already, there should have been 60 s or more possible). --Dirtsc 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I had no cable release with me (and therefore limited to 30 seconds).--ArildV 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jean11 17:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Театр_оперы_и_балета._Зал.jpg

• Nomination Audience hall of Odessa Opera and Ballet Theater (1887, Büro Fellner & Helmer, architectural monument of the national significance №549). Odesa, Ukraine. By User:Alex Levitsky & Dmitry Shamatazhi --Ahonc 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good image --Shansov.net 09:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much noise IMO and the quality of the top left is worrying --Poco a poco 22:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Acceptable IMO.--Jebulon 09:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support top is a bit blurred and noisy but acceptable --Christian Ferrer 16:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• weak  Support Noisy and nearly overexposed but overall OK. Nice pic. --Kreuzschnabel 14:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Are you in a mild christmas mood, guys? The motif of this photo is nice of course and useful for WP, but it is lacking quality characteristics we recommend for almost every other photo. It is very noisy and is very unsharp on top. At least the first issue could easily be fixed. Another issue that could be considered to be neglectable are the large burnt out areas of the candelabra. --Cccefalon 07:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I rather have some noise than loss of detail in pixel pulp. About the top edge being unsharp, its an extreme wide-angle shot. Most of the image is perfectly well detailed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too noise for a immobile object --The Photographer 17:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Cccefalon. --P e z i 17:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Left top corner really makes it tough to give it QI --DXR 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 17:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Nuestra_Señora,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_03.JPG

• Nomination: Notre-Dame Basilica, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 09:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support I am not really convinced about the composition (statue looks out of the photo, green building disturbs). Also the church looks a bit distorted. Quality is OK. --Tuxyso 09:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC).
•  Oppose IMO the composition is good with the statue (it works with the name of the church), but the persp. correction of the left tower is too much, and the top is blurry. I think a discussion could help. Thanks.--Jebulon 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
•  New version upload, please, give me some feedback Poco a poco 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, better. But you chose a very difficult point of view and angle... The left tower was too much "stretched", it seems acceptable now (even stil blurry at top). Maybe you should reduce the width too: the rosace is oval and not round, and the persons look a bit too wide. But it is only my poor opinion, dear Poco.--Jebulon 09:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Poco a poco 11:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jean11 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB Z7 Djanogly LRC and The Exchange.jpg

• Nomination Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 10:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Promotion  Oppose Too much blown out areas and I mean areas which are not a luminous source. --Cccefalon 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  I ask for a second opinion, I do not believe any overexposure is a problem here. Mattbuck 20:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support QI. Blown out areas are impossible to avoid for a night shot like this.--GMLSX 23:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support} --The Photographer 17:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 17:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)