Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates


Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
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 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 July 22 2017 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


NominationsEdit

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]] 03:02, 22 July 2017 (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 • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

July 22, 2017Edit

July 21, 2017Edit

July 20, 2017Edit

July 19, 2017Edit

July 18, 2017Edit

July 17, 2017Edit

July 16, 2017Edit

July 15, 2017Edit

July 14, 2017Edit

July 13, 2017Edit

July 12, 2017Edit

July 11, 2017Edit

July 10, 2017Edit

July 9, 2017Edit

July 6, 2017Edit

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:AvCametyConstitucion-05752.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View of Felix U. Camet Avenue and Constitucion Avenue --Ezarate 02:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quality high enough for Q1, but sky is a bit noisy --Michielverbeek 05:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Very unfavorable lighting. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main subject is in the shade, too dark IMO. --Basotxerri 05:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think, the shadows can be lightened up. Wanna giv it a try? -- DerFussi 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 05:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Light_dispersion_conceptual_waves.gifEdit

 

  • Nomination Light dispersion in a prism --Geek3 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Sadly, the resolution is below the 2 megapixel minimum requirement for QI. There is an exception: This rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description. Somebody tell me if that's the case. --Peulle 21:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support See my reply on the other gif at CR. Please don't 'oppose' just because you are uncertain about how to judge a photo, ask instead. If no one had caught this, it would have been washed out needlessly. --W.carter 10:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, I was actually planning to move this to CR today, both images should be judged the same way.--Peulle 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and good but I wish the resolution was better. Should be possible as it seems to be computer-generated. --Basotxerri 05:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Each image in the gif could surely be generated in a larger size, but not the resulting gif. You always have do reduce the image size if you are making a gif with a lot of images or the software won't be able to keep up with it. This is a 90 images gif, hence the smaller size. See my reply below on "File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gif". --W.carter 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I think you're right, I didn't think about the animation smoothness. --Basotxerri 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe this is the kind of image that could have been done into a bigger one by making a video file?--Peulle 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are those who want us to abandon gifs for videos, but in an article I think that a gif such as this, streaming out rays continuously, looks way cooler than some video link with a big ugly "play arrow" stamped right on it. In the best of worlds we would have both the gif for articles and a larger video for presentations larger than a computer screen. --W.carter 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 05:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:NSU_Fiat_500_BW_2016-07-17_14-15-04.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination NSU Fiat 500, 1953 --Berthold Werner 10:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Could you please fix that tampering with the licence plate (that black frame around it)? --PtrQs 20:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      Not done --PtrQs 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ich sehe nichts Störendes:   Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for all who are not so sharp-sighted I annotated the disturbing black frame --PtrQs 00:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment „Kontra“ klingt sehr hart. Aber dieses Foto ist an verschiedenen Stellen zu hell und mich stören die Zettel in der Windschutzscheibe. Deshalb kann ich nicht für QI stimmen. Einen störenden schwarzen Rahmen allerdings erkenne ich nicht. -- Spurzem 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Der schwarze Rahmen befindet sich, wie beschrieben, um das Nummernschild und ist wohl ein Rest der Bearbeitung/Änderung. Siehe Notizen im Originalbild! --PtrQs 15:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Du weißt aber schon wie deutsche Nummernschilder aussehen? Wenn nicht: die haben immer eine Umrandung, hier ist sie halt etwas stärker. --Berthold Werner 16:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File: MGA 1600 Coupé (2017-07-01 Sp).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination MG A 1600 Coupé from 1959/60 at “Europa Klassik” in Andernach on the Rhine -- Spurzem 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: Sagen Sie bitte endlich, was Sie haben wollen. Es muss etwas sein, wofür sich außer Ihnen niemand interessiert; aber ich möchte es wissen. -- Spurzem 22:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The category should have all necessary parent categories; that are to be related to the city, the event, the year. Otherwise no one can find the category and, as a result, the photo either. See COM:Categories (there is German version) --A.Savin 22:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I did. So what? --A.Savin 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK, categories too. --XRay 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support alle notwendigen Kategorien vorhanden. --Ralf Roletschek 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It was properly categorized. The existence of a thorough parent category hierarchy must not be part of a QI discussion. -- DerFussi 07:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Tsungam 06:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Glenfinnan_Monument.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The Glenfinnan Monument --DeFacto 20:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Monument is not straight, please think about the verticals --Michielverbeek 20:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That's the impression which you will have standing near by the monument.
  •   Support for me. -- Spurzem 20:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, Michielverbeek: I think looking up from this close a small amount of perspective convergence is necessary to avoid an unnatural appearance. DeFacto 21:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- OK to me. -- DerFussi 07:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 08:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gifEdit

 

  • Nomination 3D animation for moments of inertia --Geek3 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for discussion; it's below the 2MP limit - does it hit the exception in the guidelines? "This rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description."--Peulle 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Most QI and FP gifs are well below 2MP simply because they are many pictures stacked. Most normal software can't even produce complicated gifs as big as 2MP and the wiki software also distort the color in large gifs when they are shown in thumb. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated, one of the gif FPs there is only 280 × 233 pixels. If you are uncertain about how to judge a photo, it is always good to have a look at the corresponding FP category, many of those are also QIs. --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So we judge them individually as we would any other picture? A gif of 10 x 10 pxl I would consider too small to offer sufficient detail, but we can promote gifs that have sufficient detail even when below 2MP? This one is borderline, IMO; I would have liked it to be a bit larger so we could see better what was going on.--Peulle 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This is actually a rather complicated gif, it is made up from 105 images whereas most normal good gifs are made up of 10-35 images. That is why it has to be made this small. When judging a gif, you need to look at both the "picture" like any normal photo but also look at how many images it is composed of and how it displays on the screen. The movement should be smooth and not jerk around too much. You can compare this QI gif with this non-QI gif. In the jellyfish gif you can see how the color becomes distorted when viewed in anything but full size, it is probably almost too big for a proper gif QI since you have to click for full size view to see it at its best. Most veiwers don't bother doing that with gifs. --W.carter 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
OK I'm convinced. There's another one of these coming, let's judge it the same way.--Peulle 21:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File: Kreidler Eigenbau, Cockpit (2017-06-11 Sp).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Cockpit of self built racing motorcycle based on Kreidler -- Spurzem 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DerFussi 07:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_brimstone_(Gonepteryx_rhamni)_female_Estonia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female, Estonia --Charlesjsharp 22:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Low quality image, sorry. Blown white and unsharp, especially on head -- George Chernilevsky 15:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 08:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DerFussi 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Frappé.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination greek Frappé --Kritzolina 05:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment chromatic aberrations need removing. Also:   Question is the glass really bent in that shape?--Peulle 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The glass is really bent in that shape. But regarding the chromatic aberrations: since I pride myself in having QIs that are not tampered with, I will just let it go. --Kritzolina 04:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OK, that's a pity since it's a nice image - declining then because of the CA on top of the straw.--Peulle 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite a minor flaw still QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO the CA is very, very slight, OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As Basotxerri -- Spurzem 08:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Malabar_lark_Galerida_malabarica_from_Kaas_Plateau_DSC3236.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Malabar lark Galerida malabarica from Kaas Plateau --PJeganathan 09:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I edit conflicted this promotion...I was declining it because of the composition/crop...One's eyes are drawn to the blurry flowers, not the bird, which is too low in the photo. I've tagged for discussion. PumpkinSky 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Those flowers are kept in the frame essentially to show the habitat and especially the Kaas Plateau which is a world heritage site and known for Smithia flowers. Just by looking at the flowers one can (people who know these landscapes) roughly say from where the image was taken--PJeganathan 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with PumpkinSky regarding the crop; I also feel that it is over-saturated and possibly too dark; I have uploaded a possible edit here:   --Alandmanson 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I could support the alternate. PumpkinSky 12:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this Alandmanson. Do I have to repeat what you did with the image and upload it again? or no need? --PJeganathan 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
        • No need to repeat (although you or others may prefer a different crop or colour adjustment), but submission of the edit would presumably be needed if you want QI assessment.--Alandmanson 05:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
          • My suggestion, let this nom get declined. Upload a cropped version like Alandmanson's but bring the crop in so the two yellow flowers on the right can't be seen. Upload it either as a separate file or as a mod of the current nom. PumpkinSky 20:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De Meije, rivier De Meije bij Loonspuitbedrijf Kerkvliet BV foto5 2017-07-09 09.52.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination De Meije-NL, river de Meije near Loonspuitbedrijf Kerkvliet BV --Michielverbeek 23:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Disturbing foreground objects, sorry. --Peulle 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a very small river that is used for recreation (nearly not for commercial activities); I think the foreground objects emphasize this possibility and really add something to the composition --Michielverbeek 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Then the boats should have been included in the image, IMO, and not cut off like this. We'll see if other people have different opinions.--Peulle 15:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73789.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Pontiac Parisienne --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And as usual the file needs a better name, calling all these files "Street view in the capital" even if it is masked by Finish spelling is not QI policy. --W.carter 09:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title. --Peulle 11:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gut fotografiert. Im Dateinamen sollte noch der auf dem Fahrzeug ohne Weiteres erkennbare Markenname "Pontiac" genannt warden, wenn möglich auf noch der Typ. Wo das Auto steht, ist unbedeutend. -- Spurzem 11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto.--Ermell 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support File name is unusual, but ok, it contains a name (street view in Finnish, a date an the authors initials. Type of car is state in the description and category where it should go normally. Location category would be nice,if you remember it. -- DerFussi 10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73773.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Volvo PV444 --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And as usual the file needs a better name, calling all these files "Street view in the capital" even if it is masked by Finish spelling is not QI policy. --W.carter 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title.--Peulle 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto eines Volvo PV 544. Markenname und Typ sollten ergänzt werden. -- Spurzem 11:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto.--Ermell 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 07:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support File name is unusual, but ok, it contains a name (street view in Finnish, a date an the authors initials. Type of car is state in the description and category where it should go normally. Location category would be nice,if you remember it. -- DerFussi 10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73730.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Citroën 2CV --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title.--Peulle 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ein schöner, schon etwas in die Jahre gekommener Citroën 2 CV. Nur die Farbe gefällt mir nicht, was aber mit der Bildqualität ebenso wenig zu tun hat wie die Lacation. -- Spurzem 11:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Don't think it's essential for QI to locate the car --Moroder 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Location added (Finland), but title is unhelpful --Alandmanson 12:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't you know this car? On the other hand: I wonder why it is not said in the file name. -- Spurzem 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support File name is unusual, but ok, it contains a name (street view in Finnish, a date an the authors initials. Type of car is state in the description and category where it should go normally. Location category would be nice,if you remember it. -- DerFussi 10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 07:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73768.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Opel Vivaro --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose file name.--Peulle 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Schönes und qualitativ einwandfreies Bild. Marke und Typ des Fahrzeugs sollten im Dateinamen nachgetragen warden. -- Spurzem 11:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 0-8-15 Bild --Frze 08:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 08/15 or not is not the point. File name is unusual, but ok, it contains a name (street view in Finnish, a date an the authors initials. Type of car is state in the description and category where it should go normally. In general, a location category would be nice,if you remember it. But on the other hand, a category like "Helsinki" would be a bit useless as well. wouldn't it? -- DerFussi 10:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-02-Maidan_Nezalezhnosti_RR74358.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiew --Ralf Roletschek 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- PumpkinSky 01:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dust spot to the left of the flag. Noise. Why F11 and ISO-200, and not F8 and ISO-100? --A.Savin 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I can't even see the dust spot. There is some noise but I think it ok for QI. Can't get away from McDonald's!! PumpkinSky 22:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I'm irritated by that not very subliminal cw-tilt. Could that be fixed? --PtrQs 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Links scheint es auf den ersten Blick so aber wenn man sich die Senkrechten am oberen (neuen) Gebäude anschaut, ist es wieder korrekt. Rechts sowieso. --Ralf Roletschek 23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Sorry, but after checking your other images of 'Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiew' it looks like a general problem: Wether it's a distortion of your lens (which does not look very sharp, btw), or they all are tilted CW - or some other reviewer can convincingly attest, that there are whole blocks of tilted buildings in Kiew. --PtrQs 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Slightly tilted CW. --Basotxerri 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 14 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Sat 15 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Sun 16 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Wed 26 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Thu 27 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Fri 28 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Sat 29 Jul
Sat 22 Jul → Sun 30 Jul