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 July 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 July 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 July 24 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]] 14:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


July 24, 2024

[edit]

July 23, 2024

[edit]

July 22, 2024

[edit]

July 21, 2024

[edit]

July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 2024

[edit]

July 17, 2024

[edit]

July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 14, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:BarBilbaoBsAs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bar Bilbao, Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment a bit too dark, too much road and sky --Georgfotoart 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • done, thanks --Ezarate 14:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is to noisy and shows intense chromatic aberration at the trees. --Augustgeyler 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, grainy, tilted, underexposed, compression artifacts, chromatic abberation - sorry. --Plozessor 05:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Almaty-2_station,_Almaty_(P1180172).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination KTZ KZ4A locomotive in Almaty-2 train station --MB-one 20:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not working IMO. The perspective lines are going to the right as well as the track with the shown locomotive. Even the woman is adding to this impression that on the right side the most important part is happening. But on exactly this side is cut of very closely. Instead we have a large "empty" part on the left. --Augustgeyler 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition works for me and technical quality is good. --Plozessor 05:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Apatani_culture.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apatani woman, Ziro Valley in Arunachal Pradesh, India. --Felino Volador 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stunning image. But it looks over sharpened. --Augustgeyler 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry image (either due noise reduction from high ISO or camera movement) that has been sharpened which didn't work out, sorry. --Plozessor 05:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Jesus_Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jesus Church --Rione Colonna 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The sky is noisy (fixable?). The filename and description would be better. --Tournasol7 16:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done thank you --Rione Colonna 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Ok now? Thank you --Rione Colonna 08:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Камни_на_озере_Урунгач.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Stones in lake Urungach, Urungach natural monument, Uzbekistan. By User:Arina Pan --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sorry, but only the one rock in foreground (which makes up a very small portion of the image) is sharp. --Plozessor 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Yes, somewhat low DOF in full size view, but by far sharp enough for an A4-size print. Colour saturation again somewhat too high, but still acceptable. --Smial 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:CH.TI.Paradiso_2021-04-17_Rainbow_1078_16x9-R_8K.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Water Jet of Paradiso, Switzerland. By User:Roy Egloff --Augustgeyler 07:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Oversharpened imho, and somewhat overexposed. --Smial 12:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per Smial --George Chernilevsky 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Somehow overprocessed. --Plozessor 08:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:St._Johann_Baptist_(Beyharting),_Innenansicht,_2024-05-20.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Der Innenraum der Kirche St. Johann Baptist (Beyharting). --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose for now. It's very nice photo, but the right side seems to leaning in. --Tournasol7 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose for now, leaning and blue tint, should be fixable. --Plozessor 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak  Support. I don't find the color rendition unnatural, assuming that most of the lighting is through the blue sky through clear window panes. It's just mixed light. If you generally force the white balance to neutral white for the blue-lit walls, other areas will turn out far too reddish. You would therefore have to partially edit the photo, which I consider to be a disproportionately high requirement for QI if you are working with the light available on location. I don't really find the perspective distortion problematic either, because I find some "verticals" that are wonderfully vertical and others that are not perfectly vertical. The only thing I find disturbing is the color fringing around the window in the upper left corner of the picture, which also looks a bit crooked. I don't know whether this is an uncorrected barrel distortion of the lens or whether it is actually a bit crooked. --Smial 12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
      @Smial: I usually don't have issues with perspective views, but in this case, the left pillar is perfectly vertical while its right counterpart is not. Would accept it if both were leaning identically. About the blue tint, I find it a bit disturbing on that right white wall but I would not decline the image due that. --Plozessor 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I've seen it and I accept your opinion, and if the uploader tweaks the flaws we've mentioned (which I think are tolerable, just too big for you) without spoiling the photo, I'm happy to cross out my "weak". My only concern is that FPC criteria are not introduced into QIC through the back door, especially when photos are already quite usable in themselves. --Smial 15:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment General comment: In old churches there is almost never a "correct" perspective correction possible, the floor is not even, the walls are falling in all directions and sometimes even the main altar is decentered to the remaining room. Try yourself and you will agree. Look to other inside view uploads, if you still think my photo is not a quality image, well...

    --2015 Michael 2015 17:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Fireworks_in_Sevierville,_Tennessee_on_4th_of_July_-_1.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Fireworks in celebration of Independence Day in Sevierville, Tennessee, on July 4. --Roc0ast3r 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Unsharp (no tripod used?) and under exposed. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Upped the exposure and cropped the bottom. Not sure why it looked like that because I did use a tripod but oh well. --Roc0ast3r 05:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 05:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Енбекшиказахский_район,_обсерватория_Ассы-Тургень_сверху_(1).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Assy-Turgen observatory photographed from above. Almaty sanctuary, Enbekshikazakh District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose The subject of the picture is only a minor part of the picture. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not sure if this is a valid reason to decline so changed to discussion to hear other opinions. For me this picture shows not only the observatory itself but also a terrain conditions where it is placed. Красный 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Composition is part of the guidelines. --Augustgeyler 05:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Composition is ok for me (as said it shows the observatory with its surroundings), but  Oppose for now because it's tilted and underexposed. --Plozessor 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Rani_Mahal_Astabal_S-MP-28_(6).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination ASI monument numberI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016. --Suyash.dwivedi 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The sky looks  Overexposed and sharpness is too low here. --Augustgeyler 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Not sharp. (Would probably have been better with lower ISO and longer exposure.) --Plozessor 08:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per others. f/16 never is a good idea in landscape photography when using a camera with crop sensor and 18 MPixels. Blurring noise reduction and downscaling won't help either. --Smial 12:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Charleroi_-_gare_Centrale_-_2024-07-14_-_01.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Le Forgeron de Constantin Meunier devant la Gare de Charleroi-Central. --Jmh2o 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Looks promising, but can you improve the perspective and the contrast please? --Mike Peel 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Is it better now ? --Jmh2o 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_preekstoel_detail_4.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Woodcarving of the pulpit of the Great Church of Breda --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 11:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Noised and soft except central part. Below QI quality IMO. This is not a creator mistake, just poor camera --George Chernilevsky 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Per George. For a picture taken with a smartphone in low light it's actually quite good, but if you look closely you see that it was heavily processed. --Plozessor 06:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:St._Johann_Baptist_(Beyharting),_NO,_2024-05-20.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Die der Kirche St. Johann Baptist (Beyharting), gesehen von Nordosten. --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Beautiful image, but the church tower looks distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support We have promoted worse examples of distortion. This one is acceptable IMO, and except for the distortion it is perfect. --Plozessor 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Exposure and colour saturation both a little too high, otherwise ok. --Smial 09:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Mariä_Himmelfahrt_(Schönau),_2024-05-20.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Die Kirche Mariä Himmelfahrt in Schönau (OT von Tuntenhausen) im Frühling 2024. --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Beautiful image, but the church tower looks distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose for now. Here I agree with Екатерина; I think compressing the image vertically would make it look better. --Plozessor 06:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support The perspective correction is well done.--Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Saint_Florian_church_in_Znin_09.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Bell tower of the St Florian church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The tower is not upright. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Are you sure about that? Every vertical line is perfectly straight.--ArildV 07:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment For me it -looks- not upright even if it is. Beside of that I also -think- it is not 100 % centered.--2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_85.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Very good image. But a more precise description mentioning the statue is needed here. --Augustgeyler 10:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I copied the category to the description, I don't know whether a CR is required here --Poco a poco 06:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support  Thank you. --August (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I would like more or better contrast for QI. -- Spurzem 08:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cathedral_of_Gniezno_(4).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Cathedral of Gniezno, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 07:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose It looks slightly  Underexposed or was there a polarization filter involved? --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
     Comment No, I don't used the polarization filter here. It was just late evening. Tournasol7 19:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    ✓ New version ulpoaded, it's better now? --Tournasol7 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cathedral_of_Gniezno_(5).jpg

    [edit]

    ✓ New version ulpoaded, it's better now? --Tournasol7 19:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Brest_Railway_Museum_ФД20-1237_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3210.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination ФД20-1237 Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 06:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too harsh light here, partially  Overexposed --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ New version Reduce exposition. --Mike1979 Russia 11:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Brest_Railway_Museum_ТЭ_2596_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3216.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination ТЭ 2596 Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 06:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too harsh light here, partially  Overexposed --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ New version Reduce exposition. --Mike1979 Russia 11:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:At_Oxford_2024_039.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Balliol College, Oxford --Mike Peel 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think the exposure is not OK. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too dark indeed. --Plozessor 06:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose It's leaning at right. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Lemon_Tree_hotel_in_HITEC_city.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Lemon Tree hotel in HITEC city --IM3847 02:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. Geo location would be nice. --XRay 04:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Екатерина. Could probably be fixed by compressing it vertically. --Plozessor 06:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Hello, @Екатерина Борисова: , @Plozessor: I hope it works now after correcting the vertical compression to replicate composition from the RAW image. IM3847 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza_7_(2).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination 7 Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose 'Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 1' is almost equal. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support "Not similar to other pictures" is not a relevant criteria for QI. Picture is good. --Plozessor 06:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree: "The purpose of quality images is ... the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection." --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I would prefer when users would chose only one (their best) image in these situations. But sadly there is no QI guideline about it. --Augustgeyler 07:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I agree. There are too many Wikimedia uploads and therefore they will be never used but waste memory. --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza_7_(3).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination 7 Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --IM3847 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose 'Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 1' is better than this. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support This is not FP where that would be relevant. Picture is good. --Plozessor 06:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree: "The purpose of quality images is ... the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection." --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think the statement refers to Commons in general, and I agree that we should not upload many similar images. It does not directly relate to QI though, and the relevant guidelines are about composition and technical quality. So, while uploading a bunch of very similar images might be against Commons' purpose, nominating them for QI does not seem to violate QI guidelines. But anyway, I see your point and accept your opinion, I think differently though. --Plozessor 18:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:St_Martin_church_in_Cazaux-Villecomtal_(2).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination St Martin church in Cazaux-Villecomtal, Gers, France. --Tournasol7 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose (Weather conditions lead to) underexposed picture. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too dark. --Plozessor 06:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too dark -- Spurzem 08:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ New version uploaded, Tournasol7 19:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Trier,_08-12-2023_(actm.)_05.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Trier, view from the Petrisberg on the city of Trier. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The dust is ruling the picture which is not OK for an city portrait. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's mist, and I don't think pictures of landscapes taken in mist are inherently invalid for QI. ReneeWrites 23:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:A_new_office_building_under_construction_on_Hitech_City_road_(2).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination A new office building under construction on Hitech City road --IM3847 00:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Perspective distortion not or not right corrected. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Perspective seems fine, walls are perfectly vertical. --Plozessor 09:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment "perfectly vertical" is often not given the best picture look, perspective correction is its own kind of art, i.e. in my opinion Lightroom Classic makes almost always not usbable results, the following manual correction is often also only some compromise. --2015 Michael 2015 17:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Église_Saint-Gall_(Niedermorschwihr).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination St. Gall Church in Niedermorschwihr (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 18:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The object sticks to the bottom edge. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Per Michael. It is a technically good image. But the composition does not work IMO. There is more or less just the roof and all sticks to the bottom of the frame. But I think the issue is not hard enough to oppose. --August (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I cut differently. Gzen92 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    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)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:McLaren_570S_Spider_IMG_9947.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination McLaren 570S Spider in Echterdingen --Alexander-93 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Decline
    •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too shallow DoF here. The front of the car is not in focus. --Augustgeyler 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Chapel_in_Münchner_Residenz.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination chapel in Münchner Residenz --AuHaidhausen 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I am sorry to oppose here, but there must have gone wrong something at perspective correction. All horizontal lines are straight but the image was not taken from the centre. So the horizontal perspective looks distorted now. --Augustgeyler 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support A bit noisy but otherwise good. --Plozessor 09:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. --Smial 09:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Perspective correction creates something a little strange here, but acceptable. Otherwise very good for an interior shot with a long DoF. --Benjism89 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Salò_at_Puch_Open_Air_2024_25.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Salò and band at the Puch Open Air in Jetzendorf, Germany --Kritzolina 10:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too noisy. --C messier 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Sorry but I disagree, the noisy is quite evident but still acceptable for an ISO 3200 shot. --Terragio67 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Whether it's a photo with an ISO of 3200 or not, it's too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 20:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment For a featured candidate image I would completely agree, perhaps for a QI candidate image your judgment is rather severe. Terragio67 06:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose QI has even more emphasis on the technical quality, and this image is clearly too noisy and too blurry for QI. --Plozessor 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak  Oppose. The image noise is borderline, but I'm more bothered by the slight overexposure, which leads to strange colours on the forehead. If there is a RAW version that can be darkened a little so that the colour channels don't clip and remain intact, I would change my assessment. --Smial 09:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Ps: simply darkening the JPG usually doesn't work.
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Parchau.jpg

    [edit]

    ✓ Done Sorry, new and bigger --Georgfotoart 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_151.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Please discuss, whether the yellow tint is good for QI. -- Spurzem 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done WB tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment It seems a bit better. But I can not imagine that it is the correct color. It is difficult. I don't know whether the cars should be in the English racing green. Let's here what others say. Best regards -- Spurzem 15:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Guépier_d'Europe_ichkeul.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national parkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image won the 5th prize in the national contest of Tunisia in Wiki Loves Earth 2017 This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017. --El Golli Mohamed 21:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Less than 2 MP --Plozessor 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not true, it's just over 2MP. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • It's 2,018 MP, You are confusing MP and MB El Golli Mohamed 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • You're right. I did not confuse MP and MB but I didn't calculate correctly. Still it's borderline resolution. Removed my opposing vote, let's see what others think. --Plozessor 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Very nice composition. But resolution is at minimum and level of detail too low here. Even the Nikon D500 is capable of 21 MP, if it is necessary to crop in by factor 10, more focal lens was needed. --August (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support The resolution is borderline, but I don't think it's lacking in detail, and I like the composition. ReneeWrites 08:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support not big but good --Georgfotoart 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_149.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I don't like the yellow-green grass and the two scalped men. In addition, the hood is very dark on the right. Please discuss whether the photo is already a QI or whether it still needs to be worked on. -- Spurzem 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
      • WB and brightnesses tweaked, and cropped to minimise the background men, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfavorable composition with the beheaded man. --Plozessor 04:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
      • Man unbeheaded, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment. The best thing would be to send the man away or to retouch him. However, that wouldn't change the unsightly yellow grass. -- Spurzem 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    There is now a new version of the photo without the man with his hands in his pockets. In addition, areas that are too dark have been slightly lightened and the yellow of the meadow has been slightly reduced. -- Spurzem 10:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Slighty  Underexposed compared to the rest of the series. --Augustgeyler 12:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Due to exposure and because the newly provided version is better. --Augustgeyler 12:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Schloss_Neuschwanstein_(57_mm).jpg

    [edit]

    ✓ Done thank you --AuHaidhausen 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Vamlingbo_kyrka_July_2024_07.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination View towards Vamlingbo church from the lychgate. --ArildV 06:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sharp and balanced shot but the top crop is to tight and spoils the composition. --Augustgeyler 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't have a problem with the top crop of the picture (if that's what you meant Augustgeyler) but I have one with the crop of the stained glass created by the photographer's position (should have walked one step forward) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • I generally don't use zoom lenses for architecture and landscape (just an explanation) so if I had taken a step forward the vault would have disappeared completely. For me the image works anyway, the image captures the feeling of walking through the lychgate and see the church through the vault. ArildV --ArildV 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Hey @ArildV: , I agree with you. I do like your decission to integrate the gate into your composition. It's great. I just think it is cropped too tight, so there should be a little more of the gate visible at the top to look as intentional as it was. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Tight at top, but far enough for QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Though I understand the photographer's intention, the picture is a failure. It's a shame that things like that happen, but that doesn't mean that the result should be judged as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support per George. --Smial 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Tagooty 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Kopfweide_bei_Klietznick_02.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination old pollard willow on the dike --Georgfotoart 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Nice wide angle composition. But unfortunately I can not find anything in focus here. --Augustgeyler 00:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Revised, please rate --Georgfotoart 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Thank you. But I think sharpness and Level of detail are still too low. --August (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok for me (now). --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Lacks details, sorry. --Tournasol7 19:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 07:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per others, sorry. --Benjism89 19:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Tournasol7 19:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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

    [edit]

    • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a wheat field in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Decline
    •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I like this image, but I have to oppose. This is not a reproduction but claims to be art itself. QIC is not prepared to promote direct artwork if not part of a photographic reproduction of an existing piece of art. I can just judge this nomination with all QIC rules we usually check. The result: The image is unsharp, looks very blurred, lacks detail, is unable to even show it's proclaimed subject and has a non visible DoF. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Wikimedia should set up a section for blurry artworks. I could very well imagine the photo presented here as a large picture, for example in the waiting room of a doctor's office. But for me it is not a quality image that should show me an object, a landscape or a person clearly and in an appealing way. -- Spurzem 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 07:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

    [edit]

    • Nomination Panoramic view from Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. --Terragio67 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Incorrect use of the "Panorama" template but otherwise a great picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Huge size, but sky is noisy and posterized. --Milseburg 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think some minor posterisation is acceptable for a 222 MP image. --Plozessor 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
     Comment A high resolution should not be a reason for a less strict evaluation. Otherwise, upscaling could become a valid way to fix problems. --Milseburg (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you @Augustgeyler, I don't like colour banding too, so, I decided to re-elaborate the pano from 16 RAW files. Thanks for your review. --Terragio67 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support  Thank you. Well done. --Augustgeyler 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Yes, there are some minor issues that you can see when opening this picture at full resolution, but it's hard to have a perfect panorama made from 16 files. When viewed at a normal resolution, this picture is good enough for QI. --Benjism89 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Saint_Cyrice_church_of_Broquies_05.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Round window of the Saint Cyrice church of Broquies, Aveyron, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sorry to oppose. As there is no reference to the perspective here it looks distorted. A QI of the rosette could be taken from a much higher point of view (like another tower or a drone) or should include some perspective reference to make it easy to understand that this is a perspective shot from down below. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Church windows are always high up (who has a drone?) --Georgfotoart 17:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Promotion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. --Milseburg 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Better now. --Milseburg 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Not that bad but the color looks somehow unnatural. --Plozessor 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support now. Still a little too high color saturation, at least for the viewing habits of an average Central European, but a very big improvement. A really good composition of an impressive landscape. --Smial 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose The image looks over-contrasted and over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Tue 16 Jul → Wed 24 Jul
    • Wed 17 Jul → Thu 25 Jul
    • Thu 18 Jul → Fri 26 Jul
    • Fri 19 Jul → Sat 27 Jul
    • Sat 20 Jul → Sun 28 Jul
    • Sun 21 Jul → Mon 29 Jul
    • Mon 22 Jul → Tue 30 Jul
    • Tue 23 Jul → Wed 31 Jul
    • Wed 24 Jul → Thu 01 Aug