Commons:Quality images candidates

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
Quality images logo.svg

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.

PurposeEdit

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.


GuidelinesEdit

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.
CreatorEdit

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.

ResolutionEdit

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 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.

ValueEdit

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

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 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. 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 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 --~~~~ | }}

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 promotionEdit

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 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 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 June 2021.
  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 June 2021.
  • 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 June 17 2021 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 cannot 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

NominationsEdit

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]] 05:07, 17 June 2021 (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


June 17, 2021Edit

June 16, 2021Edit

June 15, 2021Edit

June 14, 2021Edit

June 13, 2021Edit

June 12, 2021Edit

June 11, 2021Edit

June 10, 2021Edit

June 09, 2021Edit

June 08, 2021Edit

June 06, 2021Edit

June 04, 2021Edit

June 02, 2021Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

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".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:E351系_s22編成.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination A JR East E351 running on Super Azusa service (by Haswell2011) --廣九直通車 10:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Sorry, wrong perspective of a train. --Steindy 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      Support The train is clearly banking while traversing a tight curve. Good enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)

File:Studenka-0015.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Forest near the Studenka river, Russia. --Alexander Novikov 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Sorry, oversharpened, the detail looks like a painting… --Nefronus 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      Done Sharpness corrected. Alexander Novikov 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This version is good quality, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan --Moroder 11:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Studenka-0016.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fallen trees near the Studenka river, Russia. --Alexander Novikov 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Sorry, oversharpened. --Nefronus 22:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      Support For me is nothing oversharpend. Good quality. --Steindy 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The background looks strange and probably oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      Done New version uploaded, sharpness reduced. Alexander Novikov 08:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks certainly better, so I change my vote. Nefronus 13:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Agreed, much better. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ferme_du_Mont_des_Récollets_(Wouwenberghof)_(8).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Garden in mount des Récollets, Cassel Nord .- France.--Pierre André Leclercq 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose The greens on the hedge are burned imo, sorry. --Nefronus 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I desagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Parts of the photo look blown to me and are too glary. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Appears overexposed and oversaturated. --Smial 14:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Heart_Shaped_Strawberry.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination A small deformed fruit --Angry Red Hammer Guy 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Too small & not very good detail, sorry. --Nefronus 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I desagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The resolution only reaches the absolute minimum requirement of QIC. That is clearly too little for such a motif. I would expect at least six MPixels. --Smial 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_temple_in_the_garden_of_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Small temple in the garden of Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 07:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Not very good light imo, the object appears shadowy/dull, sorry. --Nefronus 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      Support Good quality IMO. --F. Riedelio 08:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:2015-09-18_MS_OCEAN_ENDEAVOUR_-_IMO_7625811,_at_Qeqertarsuaq_Island_(Karrat_Fjord),_Greenland.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Expedition ship, MS Ocean Endeavour, at Qeqertarsuaq Island (Karrat Fjord), Greenland --GRDN711 00:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Too noisy imo, sorry. Why so short exposure at 70mm? --Nefronus 11:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. Have tuned image slightly to minimize noise. This is not a dead church picture with empty pews and no people. At the time, everything was changing rapidly, especially the light breaking through the mist. I disagree with your QI assessment. Let’s see what others think. --GRDN711 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Iris_sibirica_TK_2021-05-29_6.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Iris sibirica, Hrachoviště, Czechia --Nefronus 14:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Peulle 14:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Some part is out of focus --Commonists 16:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think enough is in focus at a big enough size. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support by Ikan Kekek. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support It is not easy to get more of the flowers in focus at this distance; the selective DoF has been handled very well. --Aristeas 08:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Drosera_rotundifolia_TK_2021-06-12_4.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Drosera rotundifolia, Brdy PLA, Czechia --Nefronus 14:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Steindy 16:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Many parts out of fosus --Commonists 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it’s because the traps are miniature and it’s not a focus stack. There were favourable lighting conditions, so I could use f/16, which is as much as you can get before significant diffraction occurs. You don’t have to troll and selectively oppose my every vote/image for simply disagreeing with your opinions. --Nefronus 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, but please eliminate the COM:OVERCAT. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you, I deleted the surplus category. Nefronus 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Butterflies_of_Tambov_-_001.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Cyaniris bellis, the Greek mazarine blue. --Alexander Novikov 09:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Sorry, too soft imo. There is e.g. no detail in the eye. --Nefronus 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Fpr these kind of pics is accettable --Commonists 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough of the butterfly is sharp, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:MunicipalBuilding19AT.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination . By User:Grenoble17 --Filetime 04:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Soft & CAs to be removed. --Nefronus 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Good for me! --Commonists 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Also note the reflections and the background noise. --Nefronus 17:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Nefronus. Not close to a QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(180).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Alper Boğuşlu, goalkeepercoach of Turkey --Steindy 21:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Cut on the left. --Nefronus 13:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Isn't a problem for me --Commonists 16:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a problem? A portrait with a cropped ear is not a problem? This is clearly a missed aim.--Peulle (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Not a studio shot, therefore by far good enough for QIC. The photo shows very impressively the tension or high attention of this trainer. There I consider a (little bit) cut ear irrelevant. --Smial 14:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just for   Info: 1. All my photos are live recordings, would not be possible otherwise in a soccer match. So I only have a fraction of a second to take a picture and I can't face the people as I want. 2. I hardly ever do any post-processing (except for the image size and section), including no white balance. In a soccer game with 1000 or 1500 photos, this would not be possible due to time constraints. 3. I don't have Photoshop, just an old version of PaintShop. And last but not least: These were just attempts. It remains to be seen whether I will continue. Regards --Steindy 17:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by Nefronus + Peulle. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above and photographs of the players seem to have been taken properly. Rodhullandemu 07:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Rodhullandemu 07:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Parque_Nacional_dos_Lençois_Maranhenses_Matheus_Hobold_Sovernigo_(03).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Parque Nacional dos Lençóis Maranhenses de nível Federal By User:Sovernigo --Rodrigo.Argenton 17:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Big overexposed patch on the right, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --Commonists 16:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Nefronus + strange rainbow coastline of the overexposed section. Commonists, are you opposing Nefronus in good faith? Your choices of nominations to disagree with Nefronus on above seem random and not well thought out. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I certainly didn't do it at random ikan, I think they are good for me, others have voted like me, but if some others don't like them, ok I accept it.--Commonists 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1. --Peulle 06:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Saarburg_Höhenmarke_St_Laurentius.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Benchmark of Königlich Preußische Landesaufnahme at Saint Laurentius Church in Saarburg, Germany. --Palauenc05 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Quite noisy for me, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree, there is no noise at all. This is exactly what the surface of this cast iron object looks like when the photo is greatly enlarged. The benchmark is about 12 cm in diameter. --Palauenc05 08:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. --JiriMatejicek 08:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Well, then I take my negative vote back. Nefronus 14:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas 08:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 08:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Achleiten_bei_Limbach_01_-_DJI_0067.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Castle Achleiten in Limbach --Hans Koberger 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Good for a drone image, but not enough for QI for me, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enought for me --Commonists 16:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft for me.--Peulle 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • sharpened - hope it's better now --Hans Koberger 16:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bodegraven_,_de_Sint_Galluskerk_RM9751_vanaf_de_Oude_Rijn_IMG_9246_2021-05-30_18.21.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bodegraven-NL , church (Sint Galluskerk) from the Oude Rijn --Michielverbeek 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, the detail is quite misty + it would be better with more space on the top. --Nefronus 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --Commonists 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • At this moment I am very busy with making new photos so I hope to find some time this evening --Michielverbeek 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry I cannot enter my version before the crop --Michielverbeek 20:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI --Moroder 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 06:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Stones_on_Via_dell'Abbondanza_(Pompeii).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Stones on Via dell'Abbondanza (Pompeii) --Commonists 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sharpening/jpg artifacts on the left stone, sorry. --Nefronus 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Others please--Commonists 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Zoomed to 400% you can find some artifacts, that possibly could be sharpening artifacts. Or something else. On the other hand this is a magnification you could print this image about three meters wide at 300 dpi, before this problem is visible. --Smial 21:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC) (keine Ahnung, was das passende englische Gegenstück zu "die Kirche im Dorf lassen" wäre)
  •   Support Zoomed to 400%? Don't exaggerate! ;-) --Moroder 10:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 06:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Oak_avenue,_Dänschenburg.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination L 191 state road lined with oak trees (Dänschenburg, Germany). -- Radomianin 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too low dynamic range, sorry. There are almost black/white parts. → Support. --Nefronus 23:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. Unfortunately, a wider dynamic range is difficult to get for this type of handheld shot with this SLR. In my opinion, the dynamic range is good enough under these lighting conditions. --Radomianin 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Some very small burnt details. Some very small dark areas without detail. Both are completely normal with this lighting and not at all annoying. All relevant parts of the picture are well exposed and the overall picture impression looks very natural and balanced. --Smial 14:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This was difficult to decide (have looked 3 times or so at it) ;–). Subject and composition are very good, this would be a great photo if the dynamic range was better. But as Smial has explained very well, the exposure is correct and the defects are minor, so QI. --Aristeas 08:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support To @Nefronus:. Welcome to QIC, but please read this --Moroder 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I have been there for a while (a few months) and I even read the linked discussion. I reviewed many unreviewed pictures in good faith that day. Yes, 2–3 reviews might have been too strict (and subsequently got corrected in the discussion), but I think the vast majority has been fair/objective. Nefronus 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   New version uploaded Thanks a lot for your reviews :) @Nefronus:, @Smial:, @Aristeas: and @Moroder: I have uploaded a new version despite your support: To get a little more balance, I have reduced the shadows of the darkest parts a bit. Many regards to you -- Radomianin (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Nefronus 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Crested_caracara_perched_on_a_cactus.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Southern caracara on Bonaire, BES Islands. By User:Atsme --Tomer T 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Commonists 17:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      Oppose Quite good, but imo on the lower side of resolution and detail. Look at the back of the head and the wing feathers. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Appears a bit overprocessed, but it is good enough for QI. --Smial 09:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Town_hall_in_Lodeve_02.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Town hall in Lodeve, Hérault, France. --Tournasol7 05:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Slightly tilted cw.--Peulle 06:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but all line are vertical in my eyes... --Tournasol7 11:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah they look OK now to me too, maybe a mistake. I'm not sure about that sky, though, I'd like to get some more opinions on that.--Peulle 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image. Unusually intense, uniform blue sky, but not unnaturally so. --Tagooty 15:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Good saturation and color. --Knopik-som 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. --Aristeas 15:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bust_of_Menotti_Garibaldi.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bust of Menotti Garibaldi in the Gianicolo park in Rome, Lazio, Italy. (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Noisy background, blurred edges (jpg-artifacts). --F. Riedelio 09:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per F. Riedelio. --Nefronus 19:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I disagree. I don't found it noisy and I worked with RAW file so no JPG artefacts. --Tournasol7 07:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a jpg-file!
    Artifacts please see notifications. --F. Riedelio 07:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the residue after chromatic aberration removal. It's not JPG artefact. IMO it is so small that it is hardly noticeable. --Tournasol7 11:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Don’t see any problem --Moroder 07:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support No significant problem. Nice, soft lighting. --Smial 09:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support No serious problems, only very small traces of the CA removal. Yes, we all should better use only apochromatic lenses, but really apochromatic lenses are rare and expensive ;–). --Aristeas 15:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 16:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Balcony_in_Pompeii.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Balcony in Pompeii --Commonists 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Upscaled image? Also, as always, problems with CA and categories. I doubt it's a balcony. At Pompeii's time, there were no balconies. --A.Savin 01:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment "Un mirador es un elemento arquitectónico en forma de galería exterior o balcón cerrado en toda su altura que sobresale del muro." Verschiedene Sprachen, verschiedene Bezeichnungen und Umschreibungen. --Smial 10:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • They are more photos,CA removed,categories what would be the problem? You have been answered for the balcony, thank you.--Commonists 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't feel to "have been answered" sufficiently wrt the "balcony", I don't understand what should "They are more photos" mean, and Category:Pompeii (as well as Category:Balconies) is actually a generic diffusion-requiring category. --A.Savin 22:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support In a forum on ancient, medieval and modern architecture, one could certainly argue about the exact architectural definition. For me, the picture is clearly a QI, especially as the favourable lighting makes for a very detailed representation. --Smial 21:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 22:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Erdbeeren_IMG_9997.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Erdbeeren zum selbstpflücken in der Vorderpfalz, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Commonists 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      Oppose The achenes on the nearest strawberries are blurred. --Nefronus 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Annecy_07.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Castle of Annecy, Haute-Savoie, France. --Tournasol7 05:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 08:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    It looks like you added light blue to the sky afterwards. The tower was coloured as well. Can you fix that? --Ermell 08:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      New version uploaded, Tournasol7 05:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not better. How about masking the tower? --Ermell 21:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    So I withdraw this image. Tournasol7 06:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see any reason to withdraw --Moroder 20:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    So let's discuss about. --Tournasol7 11:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Steindy 23:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 06:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Our_Lady_of_Rodez_14.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Stained-glass window in the Cathedral of Rodez, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry: blurred, blown-out highlights. --F. Riedelio 10:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Sorry : Not blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 16:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC) PS : I think this image is the perfection of what we can do with a Nikon D3300 when we shoot a stained-glass window
  •   Oppose I agree, not sharp enough. I think this is the minimum sharpness we should aim for. Rodhullandemu 16:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Your example has CAs, not the image here. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip, but I was comparing apples with apples, not oranges. Rodhullandemu 09:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am very sorry because this is a nice composition etc., but there is really something wrong with the level of details in the stained glass. E.g. in the central image (Madonna and child) the faces are almost lost. I cannot decide whether this is because of blur or because of problems with the exposure (the extreme contrast of stained-glass windows is always very difficult). Sorry again, --Aristeas 07:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Piazza_di_Spagna_in_Rome_(2).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Piazza di Spagna in Rome, Lazio, Italy. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Slightly tilted to the left. --Remontees 21:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree, discuss please. --Tournasol7 09:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Verticals are ok --Moroder 20:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The verticals are OK, there is some optical illusion with the buildings in the background which gives at the first glance the impression that there was a problem with the verticals. --Aristeas 07:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 02:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Eichelhäher_IMG_2835.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Eichelhäher im Hausgarten. --Fischer.H 16:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Commonists 18:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry, too little detail & too much noise in my view. --Nefronus 18:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support The noise kills some detail, but the image still has over 5 MPixels, which is good enough for such a shooting situation. Fortunately, the photographer didn't try to remove the image noise with inappropriate tools. Nice lighting, and composition. --Smial 09:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by Nefronus. The image looks rather soft even when downscaled to ca. 2 MP. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support As Smial--Lmbuga 11:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Appenzell_St_Mauritius_tower_20210528.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Tower of the Pfarrkirche St. Mauritius in Appenzell --Domob 12:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose unbalanced photo composition --Remontees 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
      Comment Obviously not a perspective for FPC, but IMHO fine for QI. Please discuss. --Domob 07:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Since it is taken far below, the perspective correction is good enough imo --Moroder 09:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK. --XRay 07:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Moroder --Tagooty 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's quite amazing the imaging possibilities offered by wide-angle lenses and image processing these days. And how crappy it can look. The tower doesn't seem to have a roof. This is not an appropriate way to document such architecture. --Smial 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know how difficult it is to photograph large buildings in small spaces but this is surely too close to get a reasonably good image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Rodhullandemu. Nefronus 18:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Nefronus 18:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_garden_in_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination small garden in Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too tilted. --Remontees 22:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --XRay 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sharpness at edges, especially the lower one, and clearly a compositional disproportion with too much of the ground and too few of the building. --A.Savin 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is a bit overexposed, in the sunlit part of the scene the colors of the flowers and greenery are eroded. However, in a photo of a garden, I don't think it's crucial for QIC that surrounding buildings are fully shown. I think the composition is actually quite okay. --Smial 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • White balance looks off to me now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Better. Change vote to   Support. --Smial 15:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The wall on the left looks strangely purple to me, and the light seems unnaturally dulled. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The version of 16:55, 7. Jun. 2021 was better. The colour adjustment was way too strong. -- Smial 09:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Better, but that wall still looks a bit odd to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The composition and the subject are nice, yet 1) there are some overexposed parts on the irises on the left side, 2) the detail looks somewhat crude, see e.g. the left wine plant. Nefronus 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Commonists 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Fort_Lovrijenac_In_Dubrovnik.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fort Lovrijenac in Dubrovnik --Sumitsurai 01:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose  Comment Building tilted to right. Underexposed. --Tagooty 02:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There were two votes by Tagooty on this image, which is not allowed. I assume that this (first) entry was originally only a comment, therefore I have made it a mere comment again in order to fix the double-vote problem. --Aristeas 07:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed. --Remontees 22:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Exposition well balanced --Moroder 09:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Comments not addressed. --Tagooty 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Moroder. Very nice lighting, and colours. Also, the building is not really shown crooked. One could ask for a minimal perspective correction, but the image-defining left edge of the building is actually built at an angle. Only the top end is actually vertical, and there the deviation from a "perfect" vertical is so tiny that I didn't want to correct it. Also on the right side of the picture, the masonry has been partly built at an angle. --Smial 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. --Aristeas 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. I looked at my images of Lovrijenac Fortress taken at the same level as the fort. The walls were built at an angle, presumably for structural reasons. The walls of Old Town Dubrovnik across from the fort are similar. --GRDN711 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

  • Wed 09 Jun → Thu 17 Jun
  • Thu 10 Jun → Fri 18 Jun
  • Fri 11 Jun → Sat 19 Jun
  • Sat 12 Jun → Sun 20 Jun
  • Sun 13 Jun → Mon 21 Jun
  • Mon 14 Jun → Tue 22 Jun
  • Tue 15 Jun → Wed 23 Jun
  • Wed 16 Jun → Thu 24 Jun
  • Thu 17 Jun → Fri 25 Jun