Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 August 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 August 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 August 03 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]] 04:16, 3 August 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).


August 3, 2024

[edit]

August 2, 2024

[edit]

August 1, 2024

[edit]

July 31, 2024

[edit]

July 30, 2024

[edit]

July 29, 2024

[edit]

July 28, 2024

[edit]

July 27, 2024

[edit]

July 26, 2024

[edit]

July 25, 2024

[edit]

July 24, 2024

[edit]

July 23, 2024

[edit]

July 22, 2024

[edit]

July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 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:Jesi_-_Palazzo_Pianetti_1637.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Palazzo Pianetti in Jesi, Italy. By User:Phyrexian --Lvova 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but isn't sharp--GoldenArtists 14:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 10:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Please have a look. Please feel free to revert image version if not ok. --Gpkp (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no idea which version shows the more natural colours, but both are sharp enough for a good A4-size printout. --Smial 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_163.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TC at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 21:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is not working IMO. The other car in the front is distracting. It could be more in view or kept out be stepping slightly to the right. --Augustgeyler 04:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Other car removed with generative AI, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --August (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Plozessor 10:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The lower right part of the car is a bit dark. But the composition is good if I don't see the flag. We have not much images of cars with such a nice surrouding like here. -- Spurzem 13:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Eckersdorf_OT_Schanz.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial panorama of Schanz, part of the municipality of Eckersdorf, district Bayreuth, Germany --J. Lunau 12:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too high contrast (burned out highlights and too dark shadows) combined with  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 12:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. According to your first review with oppose I slightly reduced the noise and for me now the photo meets all given QI creteria, especially for an arial view it shows enough details. I would like to hear other opinions. --J. Lunau 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment So it was declined already. --August (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but too grainy, lack of detail, too dark shadows, burned out sky. A valuable picture for Commons but not a QI from technical point of view. --Plozessor 14:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 14:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Stage_20_Tour_de_France_2024_Col_de_la_Couillole_22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Valentin Madouas and Guillaume Martin on stage 20 of Tour de France 2024. --Kallerna 07:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Nice shot! --Granada 08:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose He is far from focus point. Time 1/250 isn't fast enough for cycling, despite "Action program (biased toward fast shutter speed)" --PetarM 11:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on the second driver's vest, everything else is blurry. Would have been better with higher ISO and shorter exposure I guess. --Plozessor 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1/250s can be quite suitable in such a situation if you want to use blurring as a design element, as you can see in the spokes of the wheels, for example. But unfortunately, the focus here is on the second person, whereas it should be on the rider in the foreground. --Smial 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Yak_in_Khövsgöl_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yak near (Bos grunniens) Khatgal in Khövsgöl Province, Mongolia --Bgag 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Image is not sharp and overexposed. --Needsmoreritalin 02:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Should be better now. --Bgag 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose both versions oversharpened. --Smial 12:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. --Plozessor 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_Ioniq_5_N_IMG_9406.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hyundai Ioniq 5 N for sale in Neu-Ulm --Alexander-93 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 18:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No license plate yet, lots of notes in the windshield, parked in an unattractive area on a meadow, part of the panelling at the front is too bright, too tight cut. A photo like that is not a QI for me; sorry. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem, apart from the criticism of the exposure (this seems to be a plastic add-on part with a metal look and is therefore allowed to shine). --Smial 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment For sure this is not the perfect shot for illustrating articles - but I guess therefore we have VI. As far as I know, QI is more about the quality of the image. And, well, the car stood on a meadow with no number plates and the notes in the windshield, since the car is for sale.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This is a car for sale, I don't see how the missing license plate or the notes in the windshield are an issue. Picture could be slightly sharper but IMO it's ok. There are also no disturbing foreground or background elements.
    Unsigned vote stricken. Please sign your votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Argh, I'm getting old :( --Plozessor 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak supportThis is a car for sale, I don't see how the missing license plate or the notes in the windshield are an issue. Picture could be slightly sharper but IMO it's ok. There are also no disturbing foreground or background elements. --Plozessor 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: In order to be awarded a prize in Wikipedia:KEB, the photos had to be used or could have been used to illustrate an article. For which article would you want to use the snapshot shown here? Incidentally, it is not mentioned that the photo should show a car on display for sale. And vehicles in an exhibition for sale usually do not have such a lot of notes in the windshield and do not stand out of the way on a meadow. The car is parked and apparently it hasn't been washed yet for sale. But fine by me: declare everything to be a quality photo, no matter what it looks like. -- Spurzem 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_e-2008_Facelift_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9300.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot e-2008 Facelift at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a persons face visible and there is no sign that this person did agree on publishing this image. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am sorry, did not see this in the first place. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no problem with someone's face being visible in a QI. Good quality overall. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness. --Smial 12:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
     Question What is the reason for the opposing vote? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG_X254_43_IMG_9851.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-AMG X254 43 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 18:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Noisy at the front - fixable? --Mike Peel 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF and chromatic aberration at the left tire. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose disturbing background, and surrounding. --Smial 13:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Pandit_Rajan_Sajan_Mishra_Performing_at_Bharat_Bhavan_Bhopal_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pandit Rajan Sajan Mishra Performing at Bharat Bhavan Bhopal on 38th foundation day 13 February 2020 --Suyash.dwivedi 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and poor composition (cut off hands on the left) --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. Could probably try to rescue it with better raw conversion and cropping the half person on the left out. --Plozessor 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Lille_lycee_baggio_jardin_des_plantes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Lycée Baggio from the Lille Jardin des Plantes, France --Velvet 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Too harsh shadow at the tree on the left. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 07:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review. Shadow lightened a bit. But it's real dark, I don't think I can do much better. --Velvet 08:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Left shadow isn't too disturbingin my view. --Sebring12Hrs 08:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand why intervention was necessary here before any vote was made. Now I have to oppose until this is fixed. --Augustgeyler 08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment In my humble opinion, the fact that for some time now pictures have often ended up in CR that have no contradictory ratings in the candidate list, but only more or less detailed discussions, is at least partly due to the fact that there are discussions in the list at all. --Smial 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good rework. --Smial 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --August (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Varese_-_Villa_Toeplitz_0023.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain in Villa Toeplitz, Varese, Italy. --Phyrexian 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted cw and its shadows are too harsch. --Augustgeyler 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, both fixable I guess. --Plozessor 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Canon_EOS_R100,_front.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canon EOS R100, front side, cap intact. --FreeMediaKid! 04:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support The crop is quite tight, but ok. --MB-one 08:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight for me, the are only very few pixels space left --PantheraLeo1359531 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Should be better now. --FreeMediaKid! 18:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thank you, this is good :) --PantheraLeo1359531 08:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Tooth_capping_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tooth cappingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 07:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred --George Chernilevsky 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Somewhat low DOF, but regarding the high resolution and somewhat special circumstances sharp enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 09:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Smial. According to QI guidelines low DOF is acceptable if it serves a purpose, which it does here. The capped tooth is the subject of this photo, and it's in focus. ReneeWrites 09:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It serves its purpose. Good one. --Jaronax 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per ReneeWrites and Jaronax. --Plozessor 03:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Maria_Rain_Kirchenstraße_61_Pfarrkirche_Mariä_Himmelfahrt_Inneres_27072024_5242.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the pilgrimage and parish church Assumption of Mary on Kirchenstraße #61, Maria Rain, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the picture composition is "strange": The backside of the last bench ist most present. --2015 Michael 2015 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The image looks a little distorted. For example, is the big bench (?) in the foreground really as crooked as it seems? -- Spurzem 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Composition (with the prominent bench and the floor in foreground) ist probably not ideal but acceptable. However, it seems to lean out on the left side. --Plozessor 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The impression of the leaning out bench on the left side was lifted and improved. —- Johann Jaritz 05:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cutting off the lower part makes the picture better, otherwise good --Georgfotoart 11:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Capreolus_capreolus_in_Murg.jpg

[edit]

{{../Decline|Fearful roe deer --UnFUG-Fabi 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_Л_0009_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3262.jpg

[edit]

{{../Promotion|Л 0009‎ Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 07:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:Liège_BW_2019-08-17_15-07-30.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belgium, Liège, Couvent des Mineurs --Berthold Werner 14:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well exposed, but not sharp at full resolution and teh crop doesn't let the image breathe. --Needsmoreritalin 14:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not overdo. For me the image is O. K. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with the crop, but this picture has extremely unnatural colors (can easily be seen when comparing it to the many other publicly available pictures of the same building). Signatur is missing.--August (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with the crop, but this picture has extremely unnatural colors (can easily be seen when comparing it to the many other publicly available pictures of the same building). --Plozessor 10:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how you know what the ‘right’ colours should be. --Berthold Werner 15:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Berthold Werner: Actually the colors of the sky in your picture are looking strange, that's why I checked at all. Found tons of picture of this building on the Internet, and from those it seems clear that something is wrong with 'your' colors. That should be not too hard to fix though. --Plozessor 16:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. The image sharpness is completely sufficient for QIC, considering the image resolution. The ancient lens is obviously still easily good enough for good A4 prints if you take care of the CA, which has been done well here. The colours of the building itself are fine, because we don't have direct sunlight here, as in most other photos of the same object, but rather a more or less blue sky, which is particularly noticeable on the roof. A polarising filter could have helped, but on the other hand this probably corresponds to the visual impression at the moment the photo was taken. The only thing that went wrong was with the sky itself, where there are a few strange processing artefacts and it generally appears slightly greenish to me. The treetops also seem to be too saturated in colour. --Smial 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Smial , we usually agree with the assessments. But I can't follow you here. Please take a look at some of the underexposed photos, for example, that we mark as QI and compare them with the picture presented here. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ich hab mal zwei Notizen hinzugefügt. Da sind halt scharfkantige Flecken, die da so nicht hinpassen. --Smial 13:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Berthold Werner: Die Farbkorrektur ist jetzt in die andere Richtung gekippt, dann lieber die Originalfarben lassen, Hauptsache die komischen Flecken kommen irgendwie weg. --Smial 13:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe die Flecken retouchiert. --Berthold Werner 16:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Besser ;-)  Support. --Smial 09:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colors are a bit dull, but sharpness and perspective are ok. --Sebring12Hrs 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, the WB is off. Additionally the sharpness is too low, especially on the upper left part of the building. --Augustgeyler 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.Ermell 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? Ermell 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Macaque_de_Gibraltar_(Macaca_sylvanus)_-_tête_(5).jpg

[edit]

{{../Promotion|Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvanus) at Monkey Mountain in Kintzheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 03:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:Topaasstraat_54,_Breda_2.jpg

[edit]

{{../Promotion|Large sticker mural on a window of potatoes being prepared in various ways --ReneeWrites 23:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |[reply]

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:BMW_G61_IMG_9890.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW G61 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 16:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unfavorable composition with the grey car in background (so that the subject doesn't stand out). --Plozessor 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, subject stands out sufficiently in the composition. --Mike Peel 09:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Parking lot photo,sorry. --Smial 13:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 22:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Solar_bench_in_Dendermonde_(DSCF0484).jpg

[edit]

{{../Promotion|Solar bench in Dendermonde (Belgium) --Trougnouf 10:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:Общий_вид_на_центр_Москвы_с_Софийской_набережной.jpg

[edit]

{{../Promotion|General view of the center of Moscow from Sofiyskaya Embankment --Юрий Д.К. 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

  •  Comment Composition is part of QI, that would include choosing a proper time to take a picture of an object (= when light is good). Personally I have an issue when the subject of an image is dark while the surroundings are bright (like here). --Plozessor 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

}}

File:Virgin_Mary_Queen_of_Poland_church_in_Znin_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary Queen of Poland church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not upright --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are OK, I don't see any problems with this image. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was above not clear, correct is: For me it looks like as it is leaning to the right, i.e. a "perfect" perspective correction is sometimes the wrong attempt. --2015 Michael 2015 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with 2015 Michael 2015, the image is leaning a bit to the right. --C messier 20:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A clear and sharp image. But the intense PC applied here led to an unrealistic impression of the dimensions. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --GoldenArtists 08:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 26 Jul → Sat 03 Aug
  • Sat 27 Jul → Sun 04 Aug
  • Sun 28 Jul → Mon 05 Aug
  • Mon 29 Jul → Tue 06 Aug
  • Tue 30 Jul → Wed 07 Aug
  • Wed 31 Jul → Thu 08 Aug
  • Thu 01 Aug → Fri 09 Aug
  • Fri 02 Aug → Sat 10 Aug
  • Sat 03 Aug → Sun 11 Aug