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 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]] 09:34, 25 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 25, 2024

[edit]

October 24, 2024

[edit]

October 23, 2024

[edit]

October 22, 2024

[edit]

October 21, 2024

[edit]

October 20, 2024

[edit]

October 19, 2024

[edit]

October 18, 2024

[edit]

October 17, 2024

[edit]

October 16, 2024

[edit]

October 15, 2024

[edit]

October 14, 2024

[edit]

October 13, 2024

[edit]

October 11, 2024

[edit]

October 10, 2024

[edit]

October 8, 2024

[edit]

October 7, 2024

[edit]

October 4, 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:Lake_Irene_Rocky_Mountain_National_Park_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Irene in Rocky Mountain National Park --Nv8200pa 12:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition is kind of awkward with the cut off lake and trees. Would be improved by being either (a) farther away from the lake, so you can view the entire lake at once, or (b) closer to the lake and showing the horizon --Buidhe 03:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Who keeps sending images to CR without any comments as to why? I'm half a mind to just overrule and decline at this point...--Peulle 07:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Gädheim_Mariä_Himmelfahrt_Altar_HRS-20241020-RM-161354.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altar in the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Gädheim --Ermell 07:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma on the sculpture on the top right & left, tablecloth of both altars. Flowers on the right have variable sharpness. ReneeWrites 10:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done
    Better now?--Ermell 22:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and good -- Spurzem 08:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Cow_Nokrek_Daribokgre_West_Garo_Oct24_A7CR_03627.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bull swishing its tail, Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, Daribokgre Community Reserve --Tagooty 00:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but most parts of the cow are blurry --Екатерина Борисова 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree.--Peulle 07:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bad_Breisig-Waldorf,_katholische_Kirche_Sankt_Remaklus_Dm_IMG_2509_2024-06-02_17.05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waldorf in Rheinland Pfakz, catholic church: Kirche Sankt Remaklus --Michielverbeek 04:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Stronger exposure of main object ✓ Done --Michielverbeek 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Alaska_viewed_from_Air_Canada_B767-300ER_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination In-flight over Alaska --Ptrump16 18:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tanvir Rahat 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, and low details --Jakubhal 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly yes, because it's a nice view.--Peulle 10:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:20211029_Ludwigspark_Malstatt_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ludwigspark in Saarbrücken-Malstatt in Autumn --FlocciNivis 16:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed IMO. I hope details aren't lost in dark areas. --Benjism89 21:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ptrump16 05:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now, changing to discuss as first comment has not been addressed --Jakubhal 05:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Exposure is not determined by minimal bark of a tree trunk when photographing a forest. The photo is exposed adequately for the light available for the subject: the changing leaves.. --Ptrump16 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've adjusted the exposure now. Thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 11:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, for me now Jakubhal 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now, thannks. --Benjism89 19:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 19:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mont_Blanc_2011.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mont Blanc (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 14:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GiovanniPen 16:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and vignetting --Jakubhal 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Morning_in_Pyongyang.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunrise in Pyongyang, North Korea (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Please categorize this picture. Interesting composition but we need to have a little more light and details outside the sky, and less noise. --Benjism89 21:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion and chromatic aberration --Jakubhal 17:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mer_de_Glace_4.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Mer de Glass (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting and noisy --Jakubhal 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Tomb_of_Itimād-ud-Daulah.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah. By User:Sharvarism --Amitabha Gupta 07:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Perspective correction necessary. --Alexander-93 08:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ptrump16 19:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Changing to discuss, as comment of the first reviewer has not been addressed --Jakubhal 05:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 06:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander. --Plozessor 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Macan_4_IMG_2159.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche Macan 4 in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok imo. --ArildV 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is a little bit borderline, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given the resolution, I find the image sharpness acceptable, in any case good enough for an A4 printout. The image composition also stands out pleasantly from many other parking lot photos. Unfortunately, the rear window and roof are overexposed; if something could be done to improve this, I would support the candidate. --Smial 12:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Renault_Master,_Busworld_Europe_2023,_Brussels_(P1140367).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Renault Master by Gépébus at Busworld Europe 2023 --MB-one 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Is there a way to photograph it with a less busy background? --Buidhe 05:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Pyongyang_metro_3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Metro enterence in Pyongyang, North Korea (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ptrump16 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Vote of a confirmed sockpuppet crossed out --Jakubhal 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
 Info I have prepared the checkuser request as both nominator and promotor use the same camera, software, uploads similar photos of recent trip to North Korea --Jakubhal 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned sky and minor perspective distortion --Jakubhal 04:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 06:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose multiple issues.--Peulle 07:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Часовня_на_рассвете.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel and sunrise (by Евгений774) --FBilula 13:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much Flares in the Photographs. --Amitabha Gupta 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the sun. ReneeWrites 12:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Renee. --Plozessor 15:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Главный_корпус_Почтового_отделения_Петергоф_лето_2024_04.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Post office (by Никонико962) --FBilula 13:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Saturation boosted to unnatural levels --ReneeWrites 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The green is still a bit too saturated for my tastes, but the new version is a lot better. ReneeWrites 23:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Montréal–Trudeau_airport_terminal_viewed_airside_from_abroad_an_Austrian_Airlines_B767-300ER.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Original 1960s-era terminal building of Montreal International Airport viewed from the tarmac viewed from aboard parked jet --Ptrump16 03:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Far too overprocessed, sorry. --XtraJovial 00:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No adjustments was done aside from straightening. Your issue is with Mother Nature. --Ptrump16 19:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unclear subject; building is leaning right, engine is cut off...--Peulle 08:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's unclear what the subject is, and the vignetting is very distracting. Imo not fixable. --Smial 10:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Heidelberg,_Schlosshof.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heidelberg castle, courtyard --Plozessor 02:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Person in left bottom corner spoils the composition --Michielverbeek 06:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, what do others think? @Michielverbeek: If you stay with your opinion, please decline it so that I can send it to discussion. --Plozessor 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cut off person in bottom right corner. I'm not too bothered by the left; it's hard to avoid people in public locations.--Peulle 08:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Peulle: Cropped the poor guy off. --Plozessor 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Peulle 06:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Александрия,_Капелла,_детали_22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Window of Saint Alexander Nevsky Church, Alexandria park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Perspective should be fixed, otherwise ok. --Plozessor 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Isn't it still clearly leaning in on the left side? --Plozessor 04:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that it is not. See the line on the right side that is vertical. It's corner window and I can't make the left side more vertical without unrealistic distortion of the image --Екатерина Борисова 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I still think the right side is vertical but the left side is heavily leaning in. Feel free to move it to discussions so that we can hear other opinions. --Plozessor 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • OK. I don't want to argue, but just curious what others have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left is leaning in, but there's also an issue with level of detail. --Peulle 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo. I don't miss any details, I can even see the peeling paint. -- Spurzem 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:20230107_Johannisfriedhof_Nürnberg_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Memorial stele of Wolfgang Münzer on the Johannis Church Cemetery in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good motif but unfortunately below the quality limit for QI --Ermell 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --XtraJovial 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image sharpness is undoubtedly good enough in the center, but decreases significantly towards the edges of the image. The lens used may not be well suited for photos of architecture, landscapes or the like, where uniform image quality is important. It may help to switch the camera to APS-C format for critical subjects. There are also dust spots. --Smial 12:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because there are really many dust spots. Otherwise could be acceptable since the subject is sharp enough and I like the composition. --Plozessor 13:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp outside the center, and several large dust spots. I'm sorry to oppose as I believe this is an good composition. --Benjism89 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Tussen_Leeheim_en_Wolfskehlen,_standbeeld_bij_ingang_Kiawah_Golfpark_Riedstadt_IMG_1242_2024-05-23_11.57.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination between Leeheim and Wolfskehlen in Hessen, statue at the entry of Kiawah Golfpark Riedstadt --Michielverbeek 06:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: too soft IMO. --Peulle 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I will redevelop the photo Tuesday or Wednesday and hope it's looking better --Michielverbeek 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Ermell 08:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I wait a while for more reviews --Michielverbeek 06:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. --MB-one (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft and grainy at the same time. Probably fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 13:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 07:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Gebhards_Hotel,_Göttingen_(P1140800).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gebhards Hotel in Göttingen --MB-one 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Needs PC (top bulging out); a bit dark --Tagooty 03:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    i've made an correction @MB-one, please take a look --Grunpfnul 17:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the adjustments! --MB-one 10:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Lacks good description, was lacking good categorization --Wikisquack 20:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Wikisquack: ✓ Done improved description and categorization. --MB-one 07:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 11:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bremerhaven,_Neuer_Hafen_--_2024_--_2168.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New harbour and tour boat “Hein Mück”, Bremerhaven, Bremen, Germany --XRay 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image could be improved with a tighter crop that excludes the distracting boat cut-in-half on the right.This allows stronger focus on both lighthouse and ship (marked with note). --GRDN711 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it in the next few days when I have access to my photos again. --XRay 04:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711: If you disagree with an existing promotion, move the item to discussion, don't just comment. (I don't find the half boat on the right disturbing.) --Plozessor 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I don’t disagree with the existing promotion as overall this is a quality image. I do feel it could be stronger with a little tighter cropping (IMHO the boat chopped-in-half on the right is disturbing and does not add to the image topic). I added a comment to the existing promotion as the best response that represents my intent. The overall status of the image remains “Support with comment”, with XRay given the option to act on the comment or not. As there is no Oppose, IMO this image should not have been moved to consensual review. --GRDN711 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711: But with your comment you undid the promotion and reset the picture to nomination. I think the helper does that when you comment on an already promoted picture; you should manually edit the source instead. --Plozessor 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I did not undo the promotion. After my comment (which should not have changed to an "oppose"), the QI status of this image was "Support with comment". As far as resetting the image nomination, this is an artifact of the evaluation voting app and has been documented previously. I would encourage you to work with the developers to improve the app.
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @GRDN711, Plozessor, and Spurzem: ✓ Done The file has now been cropped - a little bit and without the proposed cropped elements at the left. The position of the ship now takes the golden spiral into account. If I may make a comment: I am always happy to receive suggestions. It is quite difficult if the photo has already been positively evaluated. It is also difficult to reset the nomination status. A comment without changing the status would have sufficed in my opinion. Now the rating is up for discussion, in my opinion rather unnecessarily. But I hope that the changed crop will be received positively. --XRay 05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support with cropping changes. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As cropped --Scotch Mist 11:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Самарканд,_Алексеевский_собор,_киот.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icon case with the icon at the wall of the Alexeyevsky cathedral at 1, Bobur Mirzo street, Samarqand, Uzbekistan. --Красный 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How it can be QI, did you notice all the noise and CAs ? I don't understand... --Sebring12Hrs 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blur, CA, perspective. --Plozessor 05:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp and CA. --Benjism89 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per others --Scotch Mist 10:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:سد_ميشليفن_من_سطح_مستشفى_بن_صميم.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A dam and a Michlifen Dam, agricultural lands and oak forest, from the rural commune of Bensemim in the Moroccan Middle Atlas. --User:Mounir Neddi 10:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Moving unassessed pictures to discussions is against the rules! --Plozessor 05:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, this is not the first case, see another nomination below. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good lights and compo, but poor sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 17:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 17 Oct → Fri 25 Oct
  • Fri 18 Oct → Sat 26 Oct
  • Sat 19 Oct → Sun 27 Oct
  • Sun 20 Oct → Mon 28 Oct
  • Mon 21 Oct → Tue 29 Oct
  • Tue 22 Oct → Wed 30 Oct
  • Wed 23 Oct → Thu 31 Oct
  • Thu 24 Oct → Fri 01 Nov
  • Fri 25 Oct → Sat 02 Nov