Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 06 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

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]] 21:50, 6 October 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).


October 6, 2024

[edit]

October 5, 2024

[edit]

October 4, 2024

[edit]

October 3, 2024

[edit]

October 2, 2024

[edit]

October 1, 2024

[edit]

September 30, 2024

[edit]

September 29, 2024

[edit]

September 28, 2024

[edit]

September 27, 2024

[edit]

September 26, 2024

[edit]

September 25, 2024

[edit]

September 24, 2024

[edit]

September 23, 2024

[edit]

September 22, 2024

[edit]

September 21, 2024

[edit]

September 20, 2024

[edit]

September 19, 2024

[edit]

September 16, 2024

[edit]

September 14, 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:Bergamo_-_Cappella_Colleoni_-_2023-10-29_4469.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The facade of the Colleoni Chapel, Bergamo, at night. --C messier 19:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Unfortunately too grainy because of the high ISO --Michielverbeek 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Can be denoised, if C messier has the RAW file the result will be better, another oportunity --Ezarate 20:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_Kona_(SX2)_IMG_8762.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hyundai Kona (SX2) in Böblingen --Alexander-93 14:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Partial, but not small reflex at the windshield, for me not possible to see as a QI-pict.--Wikisympathisant 17:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support I don't know why small reflections on the windshield speak against the rating as a quality image. The overall detail quality is at a very high level. --Tuxyso 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Ferrari_296_GTB_IMG_8865_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ferrari 296 GTB in Böblingen --Alexander-93 08:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Cropped too tightly, roof has little contrast to the background, background overall doesn't fit, lower part of the rear and rear wheel are too dark. In my opinion, it's not a quality image, so please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_Z3_M_(E36-8)_IMG_8842.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW Z3 M (E36-8) in Böblingen --Alexander-93 08:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Cropped too tightly and the windows look very milky. The surroundings in which the car was photographed are not unusual, but they are not attractive. Please discuss whether the photo is still a QI. ---- Spurzem 10:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG_SL_63_(R232)_IMG_1271_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-AMG SL 63 (R232) in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 11:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too tight crop, further a bit more contrast would be good. -- Spurzem 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
     Comment There is also a version with a wider crop available, but for illustratiing an article this is sufficient. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 14:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Ciudad_de_México_-_Santuario_de_Santa_María_de_Guadalupe_0641.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Museum of the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City. --Phyrexian 07:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JiriMatejicek 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think,sorry. --GoldenArtists 14:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of DoF, unclear composition, inadequate description. --Plozessor 08:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

File:SE_Facade_Stakrimo_Zanskar_Jun24_A7CR_01111.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South-east facade of the main building, entrance to the old prayer hall, Stakrimo Gompa, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Vertical perspective distortion, fixable? --F. Riedelio 12:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@F. Riedelio: The location did not allow me to move further back, this is the best PC I could do without cropping the roof. --Tagooty 11:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tagooty: ✓ Answered You can transform the photo vertically and change the aspect ratio so that the roof remains completely. --F. Riedelio 08:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@F. Riedelio:
✓ Done Thanks for the hint. I used Gimp Transform. Please review the new version. --Tagooty 10:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@F. Riedelio: Please see new version --Tagooty 05:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning to the right at left. --Sebring12Hrs 07:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but with that distortion it simply doesn't look good. Also the object is in shadow while the background is bright and sunlit. --Plozessor 08:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Blue_and_yellow_trains_at_Gdańsk_central_station.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue and yellow trains at Gdańsk central station --Jacek79 19:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like overprocessed and posterized, but I may be wrong. Other opinions, please --Екатерина Борисова 01:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chroma/color noise and overprocessing. --Sebring12Hrs 07:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Geneva_2024_065.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daniel Berset: Broken Chair --Mike Peel 07:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, looks overprocessed. Especially visible on trees. --Rail01 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, reworked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 09:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks more natural but not sure if QI --Rail01 15:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow overprocessed and soft, the camera at ISO 100 should do better. Probably can be fixed with better raw conversion.
     Comment Unsigned vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pff, how often does that happen to me. --Plozessor 03:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Geneva_2024_069.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daniel Berset: Broken Chair --Mike Peel 07:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, looks overprocessed. Especially visible on trees. --Rail01 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, reworked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 09:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This one still looks too hazy/unnaturally smoothened --Rail01 15:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow overprocessed and soft, the camera at ISO 100 should do better. Probably can be fixed with better raw conversion.
     Comment Unsigned vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Plozessor 03:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

File:ممارسة_رياضة_الركمجة_بشاطئ_بوزنيقة.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Surfing at Bouznika Beach BW. --User:Mounir Neddi 12:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Horizon is tilted cw and needs correction. --Milseburg 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC))
  • ✓ DoneUser:Mounir Neddi 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you Better now. Some spots in the sky have to be fixed. It could be also sharper. I'm not sure if a color version would be better here. What's the use of black/white? --Milseburg 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC) I don't keep the color version unfortunately. User:Mounir Neddi 20:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me b/w isn't working here. Too unsharp too and spots are remaining. Sorry. --Milseburg 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, grainy, at least one dust spot. No description and questionable b/w. --Plozessor 04:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Washington,_D.C.,_September_21,_2024_-_066.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall, Washington, D.C. --Another Believer 01:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs PC. Poor crop on the top. --Tagooty 03:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC and crop. --Sebring12Hrs 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, crop, sharpness. --Plozessor 04:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_de_Căpriana,_Căpriana,_Moldavia,_2023-11-02,_DD_39.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Căpriana monastery, Căpriana, Moldova --Poco a poco 07:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 22:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good, but the upper part looks distorted and unnatural - like it's turned out - due to perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Upper part is distorted because the photo was taken from a short distance, but IMO still within the range that we usually accept. --Plozessor 04:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It doesn't look like the cause of the distortion is shooting from a short distance. Short distance shooting makes a building look tilted but never unnatural. However, I know that many people here are much more interested in verticals than naturalness. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 06:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose While this photo is better than most of the phallic-looking perspective-corrected close-ups of the churches, it's still looking weird for me. I'd support it if the photo would be taken from a bit larger distance (because owerall execution is excellent) but this is a no for me, sorry. Красный 14:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Красный. --Smial 12:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Since the top molding is round rather than straight like at the bottom, the distortion is tolerable to me. If straight lines were being distorted that might be a bigger problem in my mind. (I rarely vote here, but am voting since I posted two nominations on this page).-TonyTheTiger 13:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is good for illustration, but not a QI; looks like Escher paintings. Lvova 19:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 06:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Altstädter_Rathaus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Goldsmiths' House (former old town hall) in Hanau --Milseburg 13:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The bicycle on the bottom left should be cropped. Otherwise very good --MB-one 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Cropping or retouching the bicycle in the lower left is possible, but is it really that relevant for the quality? It has no bearing on the subject of the picture at all. --Milseburg 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
      • To me it appears as a distraction. But maybe you would like to hear what others think. --MB-one 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
        • Okay, I send it into CR. As far as I know, it is acceptable for a QI to have cropped objects at the edge that have nothing to do with the actual subject. Especially in narrow cities, it is usually unavoidable to cut out houses, cars, trees, etc. --Milseburg 18:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The bicycle in the lower left is hardly visible in the shadows. Hence, I do not find it distracting. This is QI to me. --AFBorchert 07:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bicycles are not a problem at all. The dark shadows and the gable wall that is too bright are not attractive. I don't want to judge whether the photo is still a QI. -- Spurzem 08:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness, perspective ok to me. The shadows are a bit dark, but still ok, and the bicycles are hidden in those shadows, I think it's good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd skew it a bit (make the right side lower), but it's still acceptable as is for me. --Plozessor 04:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Lüneburg_Am_Stintmarkt_7_001_2024_04_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential building, 16th until 20th century, portal --F. Riedelio 06:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The bottom is really unsharp. Feel free to send it to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 06:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Not the best sharpness, but sharp enough for QI as I think -- Spurzem 09:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose For me, sharpness is just under the bar. --Plozessor 04:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chicago_2024_135.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Roosevelt Road, Chicago, from the Roosevelt CTA station --Mike Peel 05:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Chroma noise on the road, in the shadows. --Sebring12Hrs 06:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, see the trees on the side. I guess it could be fixed with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 12:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. With all the tremendous architecture (at least 4 buildings in the 4 blocks to the east are over 40 stories high — w:One Museum Park, w:NEMA (Chicago), w:The Grant, ) facing east from this station on Roosevelt, why shoot west. A few hours later once the sun is less confounding to the east view that would have been more valueable.-TonyTheTiger 13:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 12:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Rosa_Polarstern_2023-06-10_7249.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A white rose in Szczecin, Poland (by Salicyna) --Gpkp 10:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There is hardly anything in focus (may be one of the water drops) and there are some lens reflections. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert. BigDom (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting, lack sharpness -- Spurzem 09:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too small (hardly anything sharp). --Plozessor 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:71_Rue_du_Cheval_Blanc_in_Cahors_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 71 Rue du Cheval Blanc in Cahors (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 16:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 19:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable angle, but probably can't be done any other way. However, the wooden gate should not be so dark to make details easier to see. Perhaps it can be improved. -- Spurzem 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support That is an extremely narrow alley, so the angle seems acceptable. Light and sharpness is good. --Plozessor 12:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GoldenArtists 15:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 12:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:2024Apr_-_Nanjing_-_East_Zhonghua_Gate_中华东门_-_img_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination East Zhonghua Gate, Nanjing --Chainwit. 18:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --C messier 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the wall on the right is actually slanted. Therefore, for me, QI. -- Spurzem 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • My reference points were the verticals that the slated butresses connect to the gate wall. --C messier 06:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment From the buildings in background, it seems that verticals are almost but not fully correct. However, overall quality isn't perfect, too. --Plozessor 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 06:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_La_Palma_2020_152.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Iglesia de San Juan de Los Galguitos, Camino San Juan in San Andrés y Sauces, La Palma, Canary Island, Spain --Mike Peel 07:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Dust spot --C messier 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Good spot, fixed, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --C messier 19:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some areas are out of focus. I ask for more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Composition is good, sharpness/focus is borderline QI, but CAs/fringing around the bells and top of the lightning rod should be fixed for sure. BigDom 05:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    • CA tweaked, and I had another go at optimising sharpening/noise reduction. Does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
      •  Weak support CA looks improved, thanks. Still think the sharpness could be better (but not something to fix in post, just the AF missed slightly I think) but given the high resolution, I think it's OK for QI. BigDom 10:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. --Plozessor 12:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI rarely visit here and am voting to offset my 2 nominations. Thus, I don't know what CA is. I am not sure if DOF or camera shake is the issue or if this is fringing or CA. However, I am satisfied with the focus in the face of the building where even cobweb type things can be seen. However, as one travels to the top of the cross and lightning rod, things seem a bit off. The ambient conditions appear to be conducive to a better image.-TonyTheTiger 13:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 12:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Санкт-Петербург,_особняк_Румянцева,_парадная_лестница,_балюстрада.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balustrade of the main stairs. Interiors and exhibition of Rumyantsev mansion. 44, Angliyskaya embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Красный 09:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so sharp at the edges, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 22:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We can demand better sharpness for a static object like this. The camera settings (f/18, 3200 ISO, 1/5sec) won't have helped here. BigDom 03:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per BigDom. --Plozessor 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Toyota_Land_Cruiser_Prado,_Astana_(LRM_20240815_163449).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (J250) in Astana --MB-one 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose The street lamp is leaning at right. --Sebring12Hrs 20:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done applied perspective correction --MB-one 17:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Neutral The rear wheel and the area around it is too dark. -- Spurzem 09:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC) – It's better now. -- Spurzem 11:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done @Spurzem: raised the shadows. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 20:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --Tagooty 10:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tagooty --Cayambe 07:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, technically good picture but questionable composition and unfavorable angle. --Plozessor 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. --Smial 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Refectory_at_the_Ağoğlan_Monastery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Refectory at the Ağoğlan Monastery --Golden 22:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support DoF is not optimal (the back parts are a bit blurry), but still ok. --Plozessor 05:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus at left. --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sharp enough for QI --Michielverbeek 22:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Tournasol7 06:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks OK at small sizes due to smartphone magic, but even on the 2560*1920 preview the OOF areas and lack of detail are obvious. BigDom 02:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mandefjild,_19-08-2024_(d.j.b)_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowering heather (Mandefjild nature reserve near Bakkeveen)--Famberhorst 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but the sky is too violet and needs WB to be checked IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC).
  • If you disagree, go to discuss. But you shouldn't cancel a promotion vote. --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support new version is ok --Georgfotoart 09:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite grainy, and purple-ish sky. --Plozessor 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. --BigDom 02:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support the latest version. BigDom 02:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Purple glow removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Appears good to me now. --Cayambe 07:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 13:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 28 Sep → Sun 06 Oct
  • Sun 29 Sep → Mon 07 Oct
  • Mon 30 Sep → Tue 08 Oct
  • Tue 01 Oct → Wed 09 Oct
  • Wed 02 Oct → Thu 10 Oct
  • Thu 03 Oct → Fri 11 Oct
  • Fri 04 Oct → Sat 12 Oct
  • Sat 05 Oct → Sun 13 Oct
  • Sun 06 Oct → Mon 14 Oct