Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

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 --~~~~ | }}

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 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 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.

  • 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 04 2020 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]] 11:14, 4 June 2020 (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 4, 2020Edit

June 3, 2020Edit

June 2, 2020Edit

June 1, 2020Edit

May 31, 2020Edit

May 30, 2020Edit

May 29, 2020Edit

May 28, 2020Edit

May 27, 2020Edit

May 26, 2020Edit

May 25, 2020Edit

May 24, 2020Edit

May 23, 2020Edit

May 21, 2020Edit

May 19, 2020Edit

May 18, 2020Edit

May 17, 2020Edit

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:Печоро-Илычский_заповедник._Печора_MG_8933_1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Pechora-Ilych Reserve, Komi Republic, Russia --Новинская Г.А. 11:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. Please add also english description. --JiriMatejicek 12:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Not good enought IMO. --Ermell 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Colors look way off plus lots of color noise and some areas are extremely unsharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 08:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Fratercula_arctica_sitting.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fratercula arctica sitting --Sonya7iv 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Oversharpened, so sharpening artifacts everywhere and noise also sharpened resp. increased. --Smial 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're getting quite a lot a criticism for oversharpening on all your excellent images. Might be worth looking at a revised processing process. --Charlesjsharp 11:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO it's QI anyway.--Palauenc05 09:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Palauenc05 --Milseburg 10:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 10:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Mount_Machhapuchhre-4589.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Mount Machhapuchhre from Chomrong --Bijay chaurasia 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. The foreground is a bit dark, but the subject is well lit. --Peulle 07:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree.An amazing motif. But I think there is too much darkness. --Milseburg 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Artistic license. I'd allow it. -- Ikan Kekek 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Лопатинское_озеро_в_Оричевском_районе.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lopatinskoye Lake, Kirov ovlast, Russia --Ele-chudinovsk 05:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. Please add English description. --JiriMatejicek 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. Also CA needs removing.--Peulle 11:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Ainažu_mols_saulrietā.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Aiznaži breakwater, by User:Tomscaune --Papuass 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA on the grass, fixable? --Pulsarwind 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Fratercula_arctica_on_the_rocks.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fratercula arctica on the rocks --Sonya7iv 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Milseburg 11:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Oversharpened. --Smial 11:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Pfau_in_Schwärzloch_bei_Tübingen_16.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Peacock in Schwärzloch near Tübingen --Dktue 22:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose over-processed --Charlesjsharp 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Catedral_del_Ártico,_Tromsø,_Noruega,_2019-09-04,_DD_13-15_HDR.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Arctic Cathedral, Tromsø, Norway --Poco a poco 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Comment Noisy --Moroder 05:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      Noise reduced --Poco a poco 10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Moroder 19:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose Not yet, the chandeliers look very distorted to me. --Puldarwind 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Saint-Valéry-en-Caux_Möwe.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination a Gull in Saint-Valéry-en-Caux, Department of Seine-Maritime, Region of Normandy (former Upper Normandy), France --Zairon 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Visible dark area around the head of the bird. --Pulsarwind 19:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Pretty gull, but on balance, I agree with Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 08:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 08:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Miradouro_Ponta_de_São_Vicente_04.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View from the Miradouro Ponta de São Vicente on the Capela de Nossa Senhora da Piedade, Caniçal, and the coast north of Caniçal, Madeira --Llez 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not yet. The alignment isn't correct. Sea level is significantly higher on the right side. --Milseburg 17:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the hint --Llez 06:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You have adjusted the sea level. But now the horizon in the left part is tilted. The problem cannot be corrected just by rotating the whole image. The orientation of the single frames must be corrected. --Milseburg 10:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done --Llez 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - I hope I haven't missed anything, but it looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 04:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support QI now. --Milseburg 13:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Artesanía_cerámica_queretana.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Glazed ceramics handicraft from Queretaro. It depicts a cat embellished with flowers and some other decorative elements. This piece of pottery is a salt shaker. --Mizaelc 20:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose DoF too shallow for this type of shot --MB-one 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Support, DoF is fine for me. However, when was this made? If it's modern it might need to be deleted as a derivative work unless a release from the artist is received. --King of Hearts 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

File:JuanCarlosLopez1-1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Vintage printmaking of Juan Carlos López, former governor of Santa Fe, Argentina --Ezarate 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeNot sharp, underexposed, white borders, sorry --Moroder 06:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  Done reprocessed --Ezarate 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I guess you have to move it to CR and not reverse my decline --Moroder 11:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, it was the tool, a mistake --Ezarate 23:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I may not understand exactly what I'm looking at here, there may be some feature of the object that makes it look the way it does, but it looks quite unsharp to me.--Peulle 08:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yeah. Interesting but doesn't look sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 04:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This appears to be a scan of an original that uses a print raster. The original version shows moiré, the following versions show different attempts to suppress this raster, but unfortunately without really good success. --Smial 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 06:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:20200529_Widok_ze_Skały_Okrążek_na_Opactwo_w_Tyńcu_1735_2128.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View from Okrążek rock in Piekary towards Vistula River, Tyniec Abbey (on the right) and Camaldolese Monastery (on the left) --Jakubhal 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs a tilt/perspective correction to get both monasteries straight --Poco a poco 12:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    •   Done, fixed --Jakubhal 12:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That wasn't an improvement, sorry --Poco a poco 16:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but I would like to see other opinions. And yes, the old version is better, the fix was not justified. I've checked carefully and everything looks ok. Perhaps the problem is that the walls of Tyniec Abbey are sloped. I'm comparing only towers which I know are straight, opposite to the external walls. Let's see what others would say about it. --Jakubhal 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 11:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful. I'll trust you on the accuracy of the depiction. One request: You might indicate in the file description that the abbey is on the left and the monastery on the right or vice versa. -- Ikan Kekek 04:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I have added that info in the description. --Jakubhal 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 04:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

File:_Osrednje-dolenjska_delavsko-kmečka_hiša_z_mansardo.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Peasant house in Slovenia. --PetarM 15:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough IMHO. --Domob 09:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Sharp enough for me. --MB-one 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support A description in English would be fine. --Palauenc05 07:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 09:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough, good quality Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Slight blurring noise reduction and slight oversharpening, but good composition, colours, and lighting. Acceptable. --Smial 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 10:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Bassin_de_la_Grande_Gerbe,_Parc_de_Saint-Cloud_20140411_1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bassin de la Grande Gerbe, Parc de Saint-Cloud (by DXR) --Sebring12Hrs 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 02:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry to disagree, but while the picture is great quality in general, there are some stitching errors that should be fixed IMHO. I've added notes to the ones I found. --Domob 10:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ho I haven't seen that, thank you Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I think the picture is great otherwise. So if you can fix at least the two bigger errors (with the iron fence in the foreground), I'll change my vote to support. --Domob 06:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't the software. Hi @DXR:, your great image has some stitching problems. May be, you can repare it. Thanks for your comment Domob. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for the nomination. I had a look at the source files, unfortunately, because the images were not taken from a tripod, the errors cannot really be fixed. --DXR 12:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Issues not fixable by thre author.--Milseburg (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Hôtel_Ville_St_Denis_Seine_St_Denis_4.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Town hall of Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis in France. --Chabe01 10:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion *   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      OpposeI disagree. Slight perspective correction needed. --Tournasol7 12:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      Comment I don't think we should overdo it. -- Spurzem 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very small perspective issues, but okay for me --PantheraLeo1359531 18:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think perspective correction needed too. Waiting other POV. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok fpr QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Colonnade_Versailles_June_2010.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bosquet de la Colonnade, Versailles. --King of Hearts 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Overall a good photo, but the cropped lady to the right is disturbing --ArildV 17:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Fixed --King of Hearts 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you. QI now imo. --ArildV 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The foot of the lady is stil there. And the picture is blurred. Perspective is quite good. I can would to discuss to have more points of view. Sebring12Hrs 04:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Fischer.H 09:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 27 May → Thu 04 Jun
Thu 28 May → Fri 05 Jun
Fri 29 May → Sat 06 Jun
Sat 30 May → Sun 07 Jun
Sun 31 May → Mon 08 Jun
Mon 01 Jun → Tue 09 Jun
Tue 02 Jun → Wed 10 Jun
Wed 03 Jun → Thu 11 Jun
Thu 04 Jun → Fri 12 Jun