Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


July 21, 2024

[edit]

July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 2024

[edit]

July 17, 2024

[edit]

July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 14, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 11, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 08, 2024

[edit]

July 07, 2024

[edit]

July 06, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_151.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss, whether the yellow tint is good for QI. -- Spurzem 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done WB tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems a bit better. But I can not imagine that it is the correct color. It is difficult. I don't know whether the cars should be in the English racing green. Let's here what others say. Best regards -- Spurzem 15:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There are other pictures of such cars with similar colors, so I guess it's ok. --Plozessor 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_152.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Morris 8 at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Slightly over-exposed. Image is considerably lighter compared to the others. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Like the others in the same series, the picture also has an unsightly yellow tint. -- Spurzem 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightness and WB tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It does, thank you ReneeWrites 19:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Changed to CR because Spurzem was commenting first. --Augustgeyler 22:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The first comment was mine, and the edit adjusted the white balance in addition to the exposure. ReneeWrites 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Frager_Road_facing_north_in_Kent,_Washington_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frager Road facing north in Kent, Washington --Roc0ast3r 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well composed! But the image looks over-sharpened, was intensely de-noised and lacks detail. --Augustgeyler 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unsure what detail this image lacks that it should have. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Texture got lost due to de-noising. --Augustgeyler 14:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, see the wires. --Plozessor 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Guépier_d'Europe_ichkeul.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national parkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image won the 5th prize in the national contest of Tunisia in Wiki Loves Earth 2017 This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017. --El Golli Mohamed 21:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Less than 2 MP --Plozessor 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not true, it's just over 2MP. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's 2,018 MP, You are confusing MP and MB El Golli Mohamed 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You're right. I did not confuse MP and MB but I didn't calculate correctly. Still it's borderline resolution. Removed my opposing vote, let's see what others think. --Plozessor 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition. But resolution is at minimum and level of detail too low here. Even the Nikon D500 is capable of 21 MP, if it is necessary to crop in by factor 10, more focal lens was needed. --August (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The resolution is borderline, but I don't think it's lacking in detail, and I like the composition. ReneeWrites 08:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Batterij_8,_Drimmelen_voorkant.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Municipal monument and house at Batterij 8 in Drimmelen --ReneeWrites 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Low level of detail --Poco a poco 16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't understand what's wrong with this image. Level of detail is nornal IMO --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CAs at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Overall very low level of detail to to strong processing and / or compression. Contrasty parts show compression artifacts. Additionally chromatic aberration at the darker parts.
  •  Oppose I am sorry, that was me. So repeating my vote and signing here. --Augustgeyler 19:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correct exposure and good composition. But again a tough battle between noise reduction, sharpening and JPG compression. I once used a Samsung compact camera myself, which was even worse in this regard, but I would have thought after more than 15 years of technical advancement, a little more progress would have been possible. Sony or Apple phones, for example, and perhaps others, even correct the CA automatically these days... --Smial 11:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Purple CA and some weird structure above the right chimney (which does not look like smoke to me). In general a heavily processed smartphone picture, with the CA fixed probably just about acceptable. --Plozessor 04:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_146.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TC at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that it is already a QI. In my opinion the the strong yellow component should be reduced. In addition, the two men appear slightly overexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightness tweaked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good (now). --Plozessor 04:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_149.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the yellow-green grass and the two scalped men. In addition, the hood is very dark on the right. Please discuss whether the photo is already a QI or whether it still needs to be worked on. -- Spurzem 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightnesses tweaked, and cropped to minimise the background men, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable composition with the beheaded man. --Plozessor 04:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Man unbeheaded, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Neuschwanstein_(57_mm).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schloss Neuschwanstein (57 mm) --AuHaidhausen 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed. We have a dozen other QI of the same castle from the same viewpoint so comparing is easy :-) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, the light is clearly acceptable at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 22:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good quality, but underexposed. Easy to correct. --Kallerna 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thank you --AuHaidhausen 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Union_Station_Toronto_August_2017_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Union Station, Toronto. --ArildV 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part is unsharp. And the sideways slipped angle is not good. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for reviews. I uploaded a entirely new development.--ArildV 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It did improve. Looks better. I just think the angle is not good. The station should have been taken 90° above and not at 80° from the side. Let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment You are asking for something that is not possible, unless you move the station or the CN tower. It's good technical quality, it's the best angle you can get and the angle isn't bad. Clearly enough for QI imo.--ArildV 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Oh that's a point. I did not notice it was taken from a tower. Thought it was shot from the air. --August (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Knowsley_Safari_Park_2006_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kobus leche in Knowsley Safari Park --Mike Peel 09:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Some chroma noise in the background. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --MB-one 21:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition and crop. The outer left thing should coped out at least. But additionally it is not good seeing the other animal at the right cropped through its eyes. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left bit should be cropped a bit but I don't mind the other animal being there. You get two for the price of one! ReneeWrites 11:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Cropped, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It did improve the composition. Changing to neutral. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It does, thank you. ReneeWrites 08:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vamlingbo_kyrka_July_2024_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View towards Vamlingbo church from the lychgate. --ArildV 06:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharp and balanced shot but the top crop is to tight and spoils the composition. --Augustgeyler 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't have a problem with the top crop of the picture (if that's what you meant Augustgeyler) but I have one with the crop of the stained glass created by the photographer's position (should have walked one step forward) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I generally don't use zoom lenses for architecture and landscape (just an explanation) so if I had taken a step forward the vault would have disappeared completely. For me the image works anyway, the image captures the feeling of walking through the lychgate and see the church through the vault. ArildV --ArildV 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey @ArildV: , I agree with you. I do like your decission to integrate the gate into your composition. It's great. I just think it is cropped too tight, so there should be a little more of the gate visible at the top to look as intentional as it was. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Tight at top, but far enough for QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Though I understand the photographer's intention, the picture is a failure. It's a shame that things like that happen, but that doesn't mean that the result should be judged as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per George. --Smial 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Tagooty 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Kopfweide_bei_Klietznick_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination old pollard willow on the dike --Georgfotoart 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice wide angle composition. But unfortunately I can not find anything in focus here. --Augustgeyler 00:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Revised, please rate --Georgfotoart 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Thank you. But I think sharpness and Level of detail are still too low. --August (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me (now). --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Widok_z_Góry_św._Anny,_Nowa_Ruda,_8_lipca_2024_KsP_2113.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nowa Ruda, Góra św. Anny, Wzgórza WłodzickieJa, właściciel praw autorskich do tego dzieła, udostępniam je na poniższej licencji --KrzysztofPoplawski 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Image tilts to the left (cut off something at the bottom?) --Georgfotoart 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment it's a wide angle view and I don't want to straighten it either in relation to the elements in the lower right corner tilted to the right or in relation to the elements on the left tilted to the left, because it will completely destroy the composition. If for this reason it does not pass QI, I prefer it to remain in this composition. --KrzysztofPoplawski 08:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Ok, can anyone else see this picture? --Georgfotoart 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very high quality, slightly tilted counter-clockwise though. I don't see how fixing the tilt would alter the composition in a significant way, let alone ruin it. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I would accept the spherical projection if it would be uniform but somehow it is not. As others noted, it seems tilted in addition to the lens effect. --Plozessor 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:10_Алматинский_ботанический_сад.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alley with wooden arches in Almaty botanical garden. Bostandyk District, Almaty, Kazakhstan. By User:Marat Rysbekov --Красный 23:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Could you please check the WB here? --Augustgeyler 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Augustgeyler 00:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think there was any need to do anything at all,because WB is absolutely normal here (IMO). Let's hear what other users have to say about it. --Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colors are somehow off. But more important, the arches are rectangular in reality, as can be seen from other pictures. The distortion should be corrected in raw conversion or post-processing. --Plozessor 17:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Praha_Nove_Mesto_Florentinum_fontana.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain in Florentinum, Prague, Czechia --JiriMatejicek 11:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective errors should be corrected. --Ermell 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. The sidewalk in the back was fixed. The verticals in the very back not, as they naturally result from camera tilt, thus not considered an error. --JiriMatejicek 09:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Monument_aux_malgré-nous_(Turckheim).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to "malgré-nous" in Turckheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment the memorial plaque is barely legible, otherwise good --Georgfotoart 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Any other opinions? --Georgfotoart 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is tilted ccw. --August (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose until perspective is fixed. Currently it's tilted. --Plozessor 11:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not seeing how this is tilted. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment approx. 0.5° to the left (clear at 150% visibility, then the memorial plaque is also easy to read) --Georgfotoart 19:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Grand_Ducal_Palace_in_Luxembourg_City_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grand Ducal Palace in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much distortion here due to intense perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 07:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I've seen worse candidates here in terms of perspective correction. Exposure a little too much, otherwise very carefully processed. --Smial 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Top of the towers are stretched out, but this is fixable. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Weizenfeld_--_2024_--_4462.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a wheat field in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this image, but I have to oppose. This is not a reproduction but claims to be art itself. QIC is not prepared to promote direct artwork if not part of a photographic reproduction of an existing piece of art. I can just judge this nomination with all QIC rules we usually check. The result: The image is unsharp, looks very blurred, lacks detail, is unable to even show it's proclaimed subject and has a non visible DoF. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Wikimedia should set up a section for blurry artworks. I could very well imagine the photo presented here as a large picture, for example in the waiting room of a doctor's office. But for me it is not a quality image that should show me an object, a landscape or a person clearly and in an appealing way. -- Spurzem 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_G06_M60i_IMG_9119.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW X6 M60i in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 12:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very noisy. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 16:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Much butter --MB-one 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there is still too much chroma noise. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vista_panoramica_dalla_fortezza_di_Bertinoro_-_Emilia-Romagna_-_GT_02-_2024-07-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. --Terragio67 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Incorrect use of the "Panorama" template but otherwise a great picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Huge size, but sky is noisy and posterized. --Milseburg 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think some minor posterisation is acceptable for a 222 MP image. --Plozessor 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment A high resolution should not be a reason for a less strict evaluation. Otherwise, upscaling could become a valid way to fix problems. --Milseburg (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Cyrice_church_of_Broquies_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Round window of the Saint Cyrice church of Broquies, Aveyron, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to oppose. As there is no reference to the perspective here it looks distorted. A QI of the rosette could be taken from a much higher point of view (like another tower or a drone) or should include some perspective reference to make it easy to understand that this is a perspective shot from down below. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. --Milseburg 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Better now. --Milseburg 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not that bad but the color looks somehow unnatural. --Plozessor 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Still a little too high color saturation, at least for the viewing habits of an average Central European, but a very big improvement. A really good composition of an impressive landscape. --Smial 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The image looks over-contrasted and over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:VLine_VLocity_-1209_'Michalle_Payne'_arriving_at_Platform_4_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station,_Sunshine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination VLine VLocity -1209 'Michalle Payne' arriving at Platform 4 at Sunshine Railway Station, Sunshine --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Question @Takerlamar: So you are the person who made this image, loaded it to Flickr and afterwards to Commons, right? --Augustgeyler 06:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Takerlamar: A "commoner" is a Wikimedia Commons user, and a prerequisite for QI is that the picture was taken by such. We could not find any indication that the owner of the Flickr account is you. If you are Philip Mallis, you should use the "User" template in the description's "author" statement, making it clear that Philip Mallis is user Takerlamar (author=[[User:Takerlamar|Philip Mallis]]). --Plozessor 06:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Takerlamar: Thanks for clarifying. So you are Philip Mallis? If so, you should point this out on your images or at least at your users page. Because the guidelines for Quality Images are saying it is mandatory that images are made by Users of Wikimedia Commons (so called Commoners). So if nobody can see and / or proof that at your nominations must be declined. --Augustgeyler 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thanks, I have just made the requested change from Plozessor on both image pages. I hope that resolves it. Takerlamar 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support  Thank you. Good quality. --Augustgeyler 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Comeng_train_operating_a_service_to_Flinders_Street_Station_arriving_at_Platform_1_at_Hawksburn_Station,_South_Yarra_(53187079413).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Comeng train 562M operating a service to Flinders Street arriving at Hawksburn Station, South Yarra, Melbourne, Australia. --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question As with the other images, you created this image, uploaded it to Flickr and to Commons, right? --Georgfotoart 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Takerlamar: So you are Philip Mallis? If so, you should point this out on your images or at least at your users page. Because the guidelines for Quality Images are saying it is mandatory that images are made by Users of Wikimedia Commons (so called Commoners). So if nobody can see and / or proof that at your nominations must be declined. --August (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Yes, I have just made the requested change from Plozessor on both image pages. I hope that resolves it. Takerlamar 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Siemens_train_772M_departing_Platform_2_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station_running_a_Down_service_to_Sunbury.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Siemens train 772M departing Platform 2 at Sunshine Railway Station running a Down service to Sunbury, Melbourne, Australia --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I couldn't find out if the author is a Commoner. User:Takerlamar was uploading it. The source is Flickr and the author is Philip Mallis. So I can't say that Philip Mallis is a Commoner. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Changing to neutral to give Takerlamar some more time to respond. --Augustgeyler 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, the author is apparently not a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Takerlamar: If you want to prevent this image to be declined, please add some information about your status as author of this image. You need to point out / proof that User:Takerlamar is the same person as Philipp Malis in Flickr. --Augustgeyler 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: I've made the author change on the image page for this one as well. Takerlamar 23:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Thanks for your perseverance. --MB-one 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Hohemarkenbusch,_Baumstamm_--_2024_--_4411.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe I don't understand enough about art, maybe even nothing at all. But I would like to ask you to discuss whether this photo based on a tree trunk is a quality image. -- Spurzem 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand too. --Sebring12Hrs 05:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Because photographic art and creativity are also part of photography. Wikimedia Commons is a media archive and includes a variety of genres. --XRay 09:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Because the technical quality (this is what we judge here on this page) of this artistic photo is very high. Believe me, try experimenting yourself for a bit, you will see what I mean. --Kritzolina 10:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Kritzolina, maybe I should also present my often mentioned attempt to photograph the non-existent black cat in the dark basement without light. Perhaps the result would also be considered great art. ;-) Best regards and please no offense -- Spurzem 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Photographing non-existing cats in dark basements ist not a well established photography technique. It it were, you might get a quality image out of it. And I don't take offense here, but other people who do good work in those fields of photography you are not comfortable with, might. The comparison is offensive in nature, as it compares doing really stupidand nonsensical things with photography that requires skills, technical expertise and inspiration. Please don't take offense for me pointing this out. --Kritzolina 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support As we already discussed few months ago, IMO the only problem with artistic images like this is the lack of objective criteria. So we can only judge it subjectively - and this picture pleases my sense of aesthetics. --Plozessor 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks to me like someone has a very unclear sight and is in a forest with sunlight shining through --PantheraLeo1359531 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shouldn't we be focusing on the technical quality instead of whether this is art or not? --Zzzs 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Technical quality is one aspect, composition and image design are another. And the technical quality alone cannot be assessed across the board, because, for example, a sharp image can have good technical quality, but so can a blurred one. In my opinion, a good depiction of motion blur, for example, is also a good technical quality. With some images, however, technical quality is not the main focus, other reasons prevail. It is therefore not easy to evaluate a picture using simple criteria. --XRay 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must reject this nomination, despite my personal admiration for the image. While I could imagine it as delightful wall art in my living room, this cannot influence our decision. Our role is to ensure nominations meet QIC standards, which do not include subjective artistic value unless the work is a photographic reproduction of existing art. Therefore, I limit my assessment strictly to these parameters: The image is well-exposed, appears to have correct white balance, meets the requirements for resolution and noise, and does not seem to be over-processed. However, it exhibits the flaw of motion blur. The subject mentioned in the nomination is not correctly focused, nor can it be recognized due to the motion blur, along with the subject itself. In my view, these fundamental flaws inevitably mean that this image cannot be a Quality Image.
    A side note: XRay could potentially have this image recognised under QIC rules by printing, framing, and re-photographing it according to reproduction standards, then stating in the description that it is a reproduction of an artwork by XRay. We would then evaluate the quality of this reproduction in our process.--Augustgeyler 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • A cite from the guidelines: Motion blur should have a purpose, most often to emphasize motion. This blurring is used here to achieve the effect. In my opinion, this fulfills our set of rules. And, by the way, the rules say “should”, not “must”. --XRay 04:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What object is in motion here that needs to be vissiualised by intentionally using motion bluer? --Augustgeyler 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The camera. ;-) --XRay 10:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It doesn't capture the subject well, and it lacks artistic context - just claiming that it's an 'art photo' doesn't explain why or how, so it ends up just being a photo that looks like it was accidentally taken. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What do you think an artistic context should look like? BTW: The picture was anything but accidental. The tree trunk with the appropriate structure was chosen appropriately and the design resulted from the structure of the surface. --XRay 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I really like this picture and it stands out from the series. Great colours, dynamic, also how the eye is led through the diagonal composition and how the brightness distribution looks like a natural vignette. I also see a certain development, because this picture tells a story and evokes emotions. But the picture can't be a QI because it doesn't meet some very central criteria here. QIC is simply the wrong place for such a photo. (Which also applies, for example, to those awful, freely interpreted coats of arms SVGs that look like they've been taken from comics, but that's another topic). I think the argument that these images (or series of images) are high-quality examples of a certain photographic technique is far-fetched, because then we can soon expect to see unnecessarily(!) noisy images or those with the wrong focus being presented as QI for the educational presentation of image noise and wrong camera settings. --Smial 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. Very useful explanation (personally, I like the picture by itself). -- Екатерина Борисова 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Apogónido_(Ostorhinchus_compressus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_185.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ochre-striped cardinalfish (Ostorhinchus compressus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think it lacks sharpness, it's a bit noisy. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I indeed believe that there is enough level of detail here for an underwater QI. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed good enough for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Plozessor. --Radomianin 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is dark and noisy, not enough sharpness sorry El Golli Mohamed 12:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've reduced the noise of the head. I will though not brighten it because it's characteristic of this species as you can see in the category. You'll agree that exceptionally that's not my fault. --Poco a poco 18:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough considering the resolution and circumstances the photo was taken in. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)