Commons:Quality images candidates

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.


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.


All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirementsEdit
  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.


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. (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 requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image qualityEdit

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 lightingEdit

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.


Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominateEdit

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 nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to reviewEdit

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 --~~~~ | }}


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 --~~~~ | }}


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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotionEdit

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 decisionEdit

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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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 December 2016 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review processEdit

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 reviewEdit

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 can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

December 6, 2016Edit

December 5, 2016Edit

December 4, 2016Edit

December 3, 2016Edit

December 2, 2016Edit

December 1, 2016Edit

November 30, 2016Edit

November 29, 2016Edit

November 28, 2016Edit

November 27, 2016Edit

November 25, 2016Edit

November 24, 2016Edit

November 22, 2016Edit

November 21, 2016Edit

November 20, 2016Edit

Consensual reviewEdit


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".

Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Front portico of Milano Centrale, straight-on --Daniel Case 03:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      Oppose for now: sorry, but please fix the tilt (it's leaning clockwise), and also, there are some chromatic aberrations left at edges. --A.Savin 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      Done Cropped it in a little tighter, too. Daniel Case 21:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)   Comment @Daniel Case: Well, I'm really sorry to bother you that much, but when juxtaposing the previous with the current version, I've the impression that the current one is significantly less crisp... But the lines are correct now. --A.Savin 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I could go back and see what I can do; it seems to me that the loss of sharpness you may have seen is sometimes a consequence of correcting CA. But now that it's down here let's see what everyone else thinks. Daniel Case 05:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gemünd, brug over die Urft foto4 2016-09-09 16.14.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Gemünd-NRW, bridge across the Urft --Michielverbeek 08:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Almost OK but the area of the two windows over the bridge is blurry (dirty lens?). Not enough for a QI IMO, sorry. --Basotxerri 08:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I think light fall is not perfect, but still good enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      Support - Which two windows are blurry? I'm not really noticing anything that makes this not a QI. Good composition and light, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      Comment Unless it's my glasses, it's there. I've left a note on the pic. By the way, the blurry area is here, too, but less visible: File:Gemünd, die Sankt Nikolaus Kirche Dm75 foto7 2016-09-09 15.58.jpg. Anyway, let's see what others think. --Basotxerri 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - It looks to me like the highlights are too bright and the picture could benefit from toning those down. So Michielverbeek, perhaps that's worth considering. However, I still think that it's a QI as is. -- Ikan Kekek 00:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Jean Michel Jarre B10-2016.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Jean-Michel Jarre, electronic music maker --A.Savin 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional oppose A.Savin I was scrutinizing this as I was considering to nominate it at FPC, but I think there is too much chroma noise in his black clothing. Otherwise very nice shot! -- Slaunger 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Some noise is perceivable, but at this resolution it's absolutely within the acceptable limits, IMO. --Basotxerri 09:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Das ist keine Studioaufnahme. Für eine Live-Situation deutlich überdurchschnittlich. Die Augen sind scharf, soweit das möglich war. Etwas irritiert mich der Weißabgleich. Der Reißverschluß ist mal neutral grau, mal grün. Das Weiße der Augen ist zu gelb. Unterm Strich aber für mich klar QI. (Google Translation:) This is not a studio shot. For a live situation clearly above-average. The eyes are sharp as far as that was possible. Something irritates me the white balance. The zipper is neutral gray, sometimes green. The whites of the eyes are too yellow. Bottom line but for me clear QI. --Ralf Roletschek 16:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Slaunger, I'm happy you appreciate this photo. I've made a new version (maybe some more neutral WB, pls. check). Considering the "greenish" shades on the jacket, i don't think it's chroma noise, but rather some inevitable effects due to artificial light. Thanks --A.Savin 17:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Support Hi A.Savin. Thanks for the new edit. Actually, it was not the green tint in the jacket I had in mind but the faint alternating pattern of green and purple in his T-shirt. I have seen similar things with my (much worse) Canon EOS 600D sensor when lifting shadows and found that by increasing chroma noise reduction it helped. Ralf is probably correct that this is perfectly OK for QI, so I have striked my conditional oppose. For FP, since it is improvable, you may consider addressing it, and I am hesitant to nominate it there as is. -- Slaunger 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Auch für mich ist das ein FP. Der Gesichtsaudruck ist toll, die technische Umsetzung in meinen Augen perfekt, besser geht es nicht. Technisch nicht perfekt aber es ist nunmal keine Studioaufnahme. Auch wenn wir mal aneinandergeraten, diese Foto finde ich wirklich Spitze! --Ralf Roletschek 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Full   Support. Great shot under live conditions, I would also support it as FP candidate. If allowed. --Smial 00:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ausgezeichnetes Bild. Um ein Farbrauschen zu erkennen, muss man schon mehr als genau hinschauen. -- Spurzem 16:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Ralf Roletschek, Smial, Spurzem I have nominated it at FPC here. -- Slaunger 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 09:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Minsk. Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (2016).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Minsk, Belarus --Bestalex 10:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Looks OK. --Peulle 10:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: please correct the tilt (church towers are leaning to the left) and chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 15:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I corrected the tilt slightly. Where are CA? I have removed it, anyway, I tried do that. --Bestalex 13:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it's somewhat OK to go now.   Neutral --A.Savin 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This one really does need to be perspective-corrected. The combination of the fence going up and the towers going down makes no sense to me from any standpoint. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The perspective doesn't bother that much but the sky is overexposed and the upper part of the buildibg is too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Austrian Constitutional Court --Haeferl 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Great architecture and good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: it needs a bit of perspective correction --A.Savin 10:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks fine to me. I guess you don't like foreshortening, which is totally standard technique in painting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, image is tilted and needs additional perspective correction. --Basotxerri 15:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. Alvesgaspar 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 09:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Metro de São Paulo, --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. Excessive NR, nothing sharp. --A.Savin 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You can't Apply the same rule for any condition --The Photographer 11:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I realize the conditions are difficult, but the noise reduction is too heavy for me. I don't understand how this made FP.--Peulle 11:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice mood and nice photo. But not a QI -- Alvesgaspar 23:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Afrincan music singer --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 11:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Lots of retouching artifacts at the background (left) --Smial 12:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done noise reduction in background --The Photographer 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are little white specks on her arms and shirt. Can you do anything about those? I see a few of them on the woman in the pink and white dress, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done --The Photographer 11:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The title should be "African", not "Afrincan", surely?--Peulle 11:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks done --The Photographer 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, I still see little white spots in the hair of the woman in the pink and white dress. When you correct those, I plan to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is overprocessing. We see some retouching in the background, and we see very strong noise reduction, then combined with strong sharpening. This makes artifacts everywhere. I would suggest to start from scratch with the raw file and use less invasive retouching methods. In street photography with moving people it can be necessary to use rather high ISO settings to get a sharp image and then some amount of noise is acceptable. Btw: I really like the composition and the situation. Great snapshot! --Smial 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is for me a "lived" picture and the quality is in my opinion good enough fo QI. --Rabax63 10:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy and the background is too busy. But I like the subject. Alvesgaspar 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Yann 15:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Home less dog sleeping --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The elephant is blurred. Charlesjsharp 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The elephant isn't that important for the picture. The photo in general is not that sharp and the carriage looks more focused than the dog, but I think it's good enough for the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, poor quality IMO: Too tight at right! (not QI!). All vertical lines, except the vertical lines on the left, are tilted to the right. Noise and detail are poor IMO--Lmbuga 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per my colleagues, 1/ too small DoF 2/crop at right too tight --Christian Ferrer 18:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Drunken man. --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment @The Photographer: You state that 'All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license'. Is this true? Charlesjsharp 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. --Moroder 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • lets discuss, to me it's   Support, it must be noisy because it's dark there. Flash or tripod aren't a opinion. --Ralf Roletschek 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. I'm surprised those two consented to the photograph, but I assume good faith. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot imagine this two persons gave you permission, but that's not my business. ISO2000 makes the photo very noisy but you a high ISO-value was absolutely necessary. However I think it is a brilliant composition, so I   Support this photo --Michielverbeek 06:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I can only agree with Michielverbeek regarding this composition. Perhaps you could tell us a little about how you do when you take these photos. Do you take the pic first and then go up to the people and ask if it was ok and if you can publish the photo or do you ask for permission first? W.carter 15:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested on the consent achieved here. Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Brazil suggests you need consent prior to taking this photo, and I would doubt very much that the man is in a position to give satisfactory consent. In other countries, consent might not be required but one would have to be careful not to describe the man as drunk. In think The Photographer, you should be careful here, and if you don't have some written evidence of consent, then you are putting yourself at unnecessary legal risk for a hobby photo. -- Colin 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The woman asked me to take this picture, however, @Colin: is right and IMHO I need both consent. Btw, this place is a public place I need ask for the consent for each people in the scene ?. For example, for someone in this case the main subject here is the Station (not for me).
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of
people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

--The Photographer 12:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a little confusing what you mean but I would say the main subject here is the people (the filename isn't relevant). -- Colin 14:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. As Moroder. Left vertical lines are tilted to right --Lmbuga 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. Looking at the man's face, it seems like it has been denoised too much. About the permission thing: yes, it's the drunk guy's permission you need since he's the one in the awkward and embarrasing position.--Peulle 18:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 08:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Eskimo Callboy beim Elbriot 2015. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}} It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Support now, thanks for changing the Template, Achim Raschka and Huhu Uet! --Hubertl 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Es ist unangebracht, hier Lizenzpolitik zu betreiben --Ralf Roletschek 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hand and guitar are very unsharp at full size, hand is cut off. Not a QI in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek.--Peulle 13:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness and composition. Situation well captured. Perhaps very slight overexposure. -- Smial 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great concert shot. Yann 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait.--Ermell 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm thinking, but see notes: Unacceptable spot or stain (see left area of the picture). Dust spot. Poor dof, CAs, chromatic noise, overexpossed areas. Sorry: Why is it QI?: Sharpness of a litle area?, hard to take?, size? But good or very good composition--Lmbuga 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many technical flaws. The worst are probably the overexposed face and the cropped hand. Alvesgaspar 23:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 15:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 28 Nov → Tue 06 Dec
Tue 29 Nov → Wed 07 Dec
Wed 30 Nov → Thu 08 Dec
Thu 01 Dec → Fri 09 Dec
Fri 02 Dec → Sat 10 Dec
Sat 03 Dec → Sun 11 Dec
Sun 04 Dec → Mon 12 Dec
Mon 05 Dec → Tue 13 Dec
Tue 06 Dec → Wed 14 Dec