Commons:Quality images candidates

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 May 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 May 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 May 20 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process edit

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

How to ask for consensual review edit

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

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

Consensual review rules edit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations edit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 21:09, 20 May 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).


May 20, 2024 edit

May 19, 2024 edit

May 18, 2024 edit

May 17, 2024 edit

May 16, 2024 edit

May 15, 2024 edit

May 14, 2024 edit

May 13, 2024 edit

May 12, 2024 edit

May 11, 2024 edit

May 10, 2024 edit

May 9, 2024 edit

May 8, 2024 edit

May 7, 2024 edit

May 6, 2024 edit

May 5, 2024 edit

May 4, 2024 edit

May 2, 2024 edit

May 1, 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:Łódź_2023_42.jpg edit

  • Nomination Łódź Palace Tower Garden View --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems a bit underexpoded, especially the western side of the tower. Pleas discuss about QI. -- Spurzem 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, also not ideal composition and perspective. --Plozessor 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Just over 6 MPixels is a bit low for a landscape shot of this type these days, I find little remnants of CA and the sharpness could be a bit better. But it's enough for a decent A4-size print, and I really have nothing to complain about in terms of colour, lighting and composition. --Smial 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg edit

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The very special lighting makes the photo appear blurrier than it is. Yes, you can definitely see weaknesses, especially on the bird's head. Overall, however, I think it's enough for a usable A4-size printout. --Smial 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Lyon_6e_-_Parc_de_la_Tête_d'Or_-_Statue_de_Bernard_de_Jussieu_-_Côté_droit.jpg edit

  • Nomination Statue de Bernard de Jussieu --Romainbehar 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good but neither hands nor face are visible here, and this is important when depicting a statue. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support "Côté_droit" in french is "right side" in english. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it not legitimate to take pictures from all sides? User also took a picture from the front, but this one shows the side of the statue. --Plozessor 13:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This side view confuses me a little. But OK, thanks for the clarification. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Nagcha_of_Feija_National_Park.jpg edit

  • Nomination Nagcha of Feija National Park picture Captured from Aïn Techia while sunset. By User:Bill.pix --TOUMOU 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white balance seems off. Colors during sunset are usually very warm; here, everything is greenish. --Jakubhal 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color balance is clearly off (the sky doesn't look green during sunset). Also, there's practically no detail, basically each mountain is just a green color gradient (but that's clearly a minor issue compared to the color). --Plozessor 09:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_pudding_position_of_Ochlodes_brahma_(Moore,_1878)_-_Grey-branded_Darter_IMG_0531.jpg edit

  • Nomination Close wing pudding position of Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878) - Grey-branded Darter. By User:Thamblyok --Atudu 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, sorry, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 12:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I disagree, the focus plan is well chosen but if you wan all the animal focused, you need to use focus stacking techniques. --Remontees 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Majority of the insect is OOF, and the sharp parts seem random. --Plozessor 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg edit

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting and too dark shadows. Thats no QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Looking_up_the_Liaison_slope_towards_Sommet_des_Rousses,_La_Thuile,_2024.jpg edit

  • Nomination La Thuile ski area, Italy --DimiTalen 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Seems quite blurred --Remontees 23:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should not be here in CR, it has no votes for or against. Please don't send nominations straight to discussion without casting a vote. BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed. But as it is here now, voting against because it really is blurry. --Plozessor 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Hotel_i_restauracja_Śnieżnik_w_Kłodzku_(2).jpg edit

  • Nomination Śnieżnik hotel and restaurant in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Name sign is blurry, perhaps camera shake? --Tagooty 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking sharp to me. Maybe @Tagooty: your browser didn't load the image fully? --Plozessor 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me too. BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Церква_Макіївка.jpg edit

  • Nomination Saints Peter and Paul church, Makiivka. Created by Олександр Олександрович Павленко. --Lystopad 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO overprocessed, there is a bright halo between the building and the sky. --C messier 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Overcontrasted (probably increased clarity and dynamics without decreasing contrast). Should not be hard to fix with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed as is, but agree with Plozessor that it should be fixable. BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC))

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_02.jpg edit

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney at sunset --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zinnmann 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight tilted. I'm not convinced by the sharpness and the presentation of the sun. Looks oversaturated. --Milseburg 15:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 10:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_in_Piran,_Slovenia,_20240504_1659_8682.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cat in Piran, Slovenia --Jakubhal 05:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photographing black cats is difficult; I know from experience. Here you can see almost no difference between the animal's snout and chest. The sharpness should also be better. For me the photo is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Underexposure  Underexposed and insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The cat has sharp eyes, and in most cases I've seen here, that was sufficient for a QI. --Jakubhal 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: @F. Riedelio: @Plozessor: - I brightened the photo Jakubhal 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Government_office_in_The_Hague_housing_the_Dutch_Ministry_of_Justice_and_Security_(2019).jpg edit

  • Nomination Government office housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, The Hague, Netherlands --S. Perquin 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Kallerna 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Picture is sharp enough. Great composition too. --Nacaru 08:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is sharp, but overexposed a bit. Maybe lights correction can help? Красный 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition and lighting, good quality for a smartphone, can't see any overexposed areas --Julesvernex2 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like the lens is a little foggy in the middle. --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Škoda_Superb_IV_Combi_IMG_9982.jpg edit

  • Nomination Škoda Superb IV Combi in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the reflections in the windshield at all. In addition, the car is very crowded and the cut is unnecessarily narrow. Please discuss whether this photo is really a QI. -- Spurzem 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support shiny objects reflect lights. That's not a photographic defect. One could argue that the crop is quite narrow, but that's still a matter of taste. Overall good quality. --MB-one 08:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beechcraft_Staggerwing_D17S_NC67555_FDK_MD2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Beechcraft Staggerwing at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Signature repaired. Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support See below. --Plozessor 06:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Interesting subject. There is some potential for FP IMO --LexKurochkin 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Actually not bad, but I wonder how the strange artifacts between the characters of the lettering on the wing came about. --Smial 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • It is easy to get artifacts in text in 400mm images of moving objects like that in post, and lifting the shadows under planes against a bright sky, even in RAW, can be tricky. I'll see if I can correct it. Acroterion 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the ghosting around the lettering, and adjusted the white balance a little to take out some green. Acroterion 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support good rework. --Smial 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough now --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image and good quality, not only good enough as I think -- Spurzem 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Howard_DGA-15P_NC67423_FDK_MD2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Howard DGA-15P at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Signature repaired Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure, as soon as the nomination is valid. Would have changed my vote earlier, unfortunately I had to leave for a business trip and forgot everything else. --Plozessor 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --LexKurochkin 08:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok. --Smial 12:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Beautiful -- Spurzem 16:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg edit

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, while I think the level of detail is borderline high enough, I think it needs better composition. Bottom right side touches the edge while bottom left doesn't, top-left side shows the corner while top-right doesn't. Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination) edit

  • Sun 12 May → Mon 20 May
  • Mon 13 May → Tue 21 May
  • Tue 14 May → Wed 22 May
  • Wed 15 May → Thu 23 May
  • Thu 16 May → Fri 24 May
  • Fri 17 May → Sat 25 May
  • Sat 18 May → Sun 26 May
  • Sun 19 May → Mon 27 May
  • Mon 20 May → Tue 28 May