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 September 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 September 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 September 25 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]] 08:13, 25 September 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).


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 18, 2024

[edit]

September 17, 2024

[edit]

September 16, 2024

[edit]

September 15, 2024

[edit]

September 14, 2024

[edit]

September 13, 2024

[edit]

September 12, 2024

[edit]

September 11, 2024

[edit]

September 10, 2024

[edit]

September 9, 2024

[edit]

September 5, 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:Serranias_de_Toro_Toro.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mountainous ranges at Toro Toro National Park, located between the departments of Potosí and Cochabamba - Bolivia -- Alberto Espinoza 16:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Gorgeous photograph. --Golden 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Motif is georgeos, but technical quality is low: Unsharp, less detail, partly overexposed sky, WB off. --Milseburg 13:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Castillo_Trausnitz,_Landshut,_Alemania,_2024-03-31,_DD_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trausnitz Castle, Landshut, Germany --Poco a poco 07:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 13:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful composition, sharp enough for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • preliminary  Oppose: slightly rotated CW. Will support, once it's fixed. Detail is fine for me. --MB-one 14:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very blurry.--Peulle 07:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing sharp (looks like camera shake). --Plozessor 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur --Jakubhal 10:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded, over the bar IMHO now. Can you please @Sebring12Hrs, Peulle, MB-one, Plozessor, and Jakubhal: have a look? Poco a poco 18:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you sharpened the blurred picture, now there's grain in the blurry edges but it's still as blurred as before. --Plozessor 18:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • And there is chroma noise now. I think it's not fixable. --Sebring12Hrs 19:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Mouscron_eglise_du_bon_pasteur.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Eglise du Bon Pasteur, Rue du Nouveau Monde, in Mouscron, Belgium --Velvet 07:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Stiching error, I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 13:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the hint. New version uploaded. --Velvet 15:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Sebring12Hrs 07:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally I'd retouch the power line in the upper right corner, but acceptable as it is. --Plozessor 10:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Moscow._VDNKh._Pavilion_No._51_Meat_Industry_P4111590_2600.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow. VDNKh. Pavilion No. 51 «Meat Industry» --Alexxx1979 09:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 15:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It was nominated before and unassessed with unanswered comment "The building is distorted/tilted" by Poco a poco. Now it's renominated without any improvement. So let's discuss if it's really QI or not --Екатерина Борисова 15:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion, it's not. And I too am not a fan of renominating images unaltered.--Peulle 07:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture isn't bad. It could be a bit brighter, and the left side is minimally tilted. Could almost accept it as it is. However, I'm wondering whether the EXIF data is correct, or if the author used focus stacking - everything from near foreground to distant background is razor sharp, which does not seem normal with f/4. (On a side note, while re-nominating unassessed images might be questionable behavior, it is clearly not forbidden by the rules.) --Plozessor 10:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem to nominate unassessed images without any changes. Often these are unreviewed. Quality of this one looks good to me. But probably it's downscaled. --Milseburg 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- I see no problem too in renominating unassessed images when they were simply unreviewed. But I think that comments need to be answered somehow. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Berthold Werner 08:08, 24 September 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Gym,_Katowice_(LRM_20240811_093821).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gym inside the Qubus Hotel, Katowice --MB-one 08:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good quality, but can you categorise it better please? --Mike Peel 20:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 21:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 06:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Truncated object at the bottom right. And may be chroma noise in the shadows. I ask for more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom right is a problem.--Peulle 07:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Thai_Soup_and_Wonton.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thai Soup and Wonton. --RockyMasum 15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I oppose, not much is sharp and crop isnt good. Should go Focus stacking in any case. --PetarM 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too small DoF for the purpose, and would need perspective correction (which is not possible because of the crop). --Plozessor 09:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:PARQUE_ESTADUAL_DO_JALAPÃO-_CORÁLIA_ELIAS-_(20).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination By User:CORÁLIA ELIAS --Rodrigo.Argenton 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 20:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What is the subject of this image? The genus should be known at least, including an appropriate description and category. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert, picture itself is good but description is insufficient. --Plozessor 09:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Paróquia_São_Sebastião,_Cachoeira_Paulista_2017_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paróquia São Sebastião, Cachoeira Paulista, Brazil --Mike Peel 08:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Can we discuss? Current perspective is natural from this angle, looking up at the church. Thanks. Mike Peel 06:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Would probably accept the perspective if the church would be completely on the image, but it is not. --Plozessor 09:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective distortion is unacceptable for a QI. In addition, the garlands and their shadows are very distracting. -- Spurzem 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Ang_Thong_2024_-_Wat_Suwansewariyaram_วัดสุวรรณเสวริยาราม_-_img_25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Suvārnasevariyārām Temple, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Perceptive was corrected based of walls and other structures in the background. The subject building is rather skewed by design (a popular style of that era) --Chainwit. 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective issue is probably an optical illusion, IMO the picture is good. --Plozessor 04:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The right is leaning a bit. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I may be wrong, but I came to the conclusion that the building, not the image, is leaning. --Plozessor 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • May be you are right, I don't know, the left is good. I think the crop at right is not optimal too. But the compo is not so bad. I wait for more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 07:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Slightly inclined inwards at the top. You can sharpen the column a little --Georgfotoart 09:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Санкт-Петербург,_особняк_Румянцева,_потолок_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Part of a woooden ceiling. Interiors and exhibition of Rumyantsev mansion. 44, Angliyskaya embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Красный 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unfavorable lighting. Is this really a quality photo? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Interesting composition. Technically very good except for the quite dark shadows, but that probably reflects the conditions in the building (it is not a perfect photo of the ceiling but it is how a visitor would see it). --Plozessor 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is still QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 09:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I doubt that the photographer has the opportunity to change the lighting, for example, take the photo at a different time, because the photo was taken inside the mansion under artificial lighting. --Mike1979 Russia 07:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting. --Milseburg 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Mike1979 Russia -- Екатерина Борисова 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 16:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Fenster_mit_Spinnenweben_und_Autoreifen_20240901_HOF0692-HDR_RAW-Export.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spider webs with windows and tire, colored. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Chroma and luminance noise --MB-one 09:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done in a week.--Peulle 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --PantheraLeo1359531 06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me now. --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: The tire is noisy and blurred. --F. Riedelio 06:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach in Mohammedia. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too bright and please, don't overcatorize, see COM:OVERCAT --Poco a poco 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the note, i fixed the problem.
    It's then a good habit to upload the improved version :) --Poco a poco 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Reach fisermans there, with SPD pedals on road bike. Fine with me, sharp, just colors could be... --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are chromatic aberrations that could do with some cleaning up.--Peulle 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No description. --F. Riedelio 06:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Acueducto,_Segovia,_España,_2024-06-14,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Acueducto, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss. I don't find all those insect-spots or unsharp birds okay for QI. --Milseburg 14:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, those are swallows, I believe. The long exposure may not have been the right choice for this shot, as it also affects the people.--Peulle 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now. Some are left, but I stop opposing. --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality, but photograph of identifiable people {{Personality rights}} --F. Riedelio 06:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3770.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flag girls entering the arena at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California, at the beginning of the National Bullriding Championship Finals --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp.--Peulle 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Available light action shot, good enough for an A4 size printout. --Smial 12:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A great scene whose technical limitations don't even show up on a printout. I tested it today and made an A3 color print with our large laser printer: the result is solid and suitable for print products. --Radomianin 10:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the sharpness could be better, but still very interesting photo, with quality enough for QI --Jakubhal 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The challenging conditions are obvious, but below the QI bar IMHO, sorry --Poco a poco 07:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Blurred, IMHO too low sharpness for QI. --F. Riedelio 05:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Langenlois_Kirche_Flügelaltar_Barbara_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Barbara at the winged altar of the parish church Langenlois, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough in the bottom, look to the hand --Michielverbeek 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough / lack of DoF. --Plozessor 05:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size printout. Nice lighting and composition. --Smial 22:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At the limit, but the right hand (right for the statue) isn't sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. The right hand is sharp enough for me, especially since it only makes up an insignificant part of the subject. -- Spurzem 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality. ReneeWrites 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Poco a poco 07:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality. --F. Riedelio 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 17 Sep → Wed 25 Sep
  • Wed 18 Sep → Thu 26 Sep
  • Thu 19 Sep → Fri 27 Sep
  • Fri 20 Sep → Sat 28 Sep
  • Sat 21 Sep → Sun 29 Sep
  • Sun 22 Sep → Mon 30 Sep
  • Mon 23 Sep → Tue 01 Oct
  • Tue 24 Sep → Wed 02 Oct
  • Wed 25 Sep → Thu 03 Oct