Commons:Quality images candidates

(Redirected from Quality images candidates)
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

edit

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

edit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

edit

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

Image page requirements
edit
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
edit
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
edit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
edit

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
edit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
edit

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
edit

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

How to nominate

edit

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

edit

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

edit
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

edit

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

edit

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

edit

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 03 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

edit

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

How to ask for consensual review

edit

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

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

Consensual review rules

edit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

edit

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


July 03, 2024

edit

July 02, 2024

edit

July 01, 2024

edit

June 30, 2024

edit

June 29, 2024

edit

June 28, 2024

edit

June 27, 2024

edit

June 26, 2024

edit

June 25, 2024

edit

June 24, 2024

edit

June 23, 2024

edit

June 22, 2024

edit

June 21, 2024

edit

June 20, 2024

edit

June 19, 2024

edit

Consensual review

edit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Oriental_Shorthair_Kitten.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Oriental Shorthair kitten --Felinlove 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, part of the subject is out of focus. That could me acceptable in my opinion for an animal shot in nature, but not for an animal posing in a flat. --Benjism89 21:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question - Could you please clarify which part of the object is out of focus and why you think so? --Felinlove 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Felinlove: If you disagree then this should be moved to discussion. IMO the cat's belly is OOF and in general the whole picture is not perfectly sharp, thus
  •  Weak oppose from my side. --Plozessor 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Lábrido_(Coris_gaimard),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_67.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Variable bushy feather star (Coris gaimard), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not in focus, sorry --ReneeWrites 09:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, may I ask for further opinions? --Poco a poco 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The eye and the head are not pin sharp but quite tolerable.--Ermell 10:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 10:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:L5_Sydney_Light_Rail_diagram.png

edit

  • Nomination Route diagram of L5 on the Sydney Light Rail network. --SHB2000 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Why are there different thicknesses in fonts? --Basile Morin 04:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • semi-bold represents a terminus and/or interchange, bold is for the title. --SHB2000 05:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Atkins road, interchange? --Basile Morin 05:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • That's bolded due to the terminus (see turnback at OSM). --SHB2000 10:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks like "Murdoch Road" does not exist --Basile Morin 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Done – Fixed that. --SHB2000 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Are there more issues, like this? I'm not from Sydney and could easily find an error. Also it looks like Robin Thomas is linked to F3. Ferry terminus seems misplaced. Can't find any indication of Atkins road's terminus on this map. Which source has been used to create the document? How to verify the content? --Basile Morin 02:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I live close to the line, so a lot of the knowledge is somewhat local and on-the-ground. Robin Thomas may be equidistant from F3 as Parramatta Square, but the official maps on the L4 trams (no photos and not open yet – I got to go in on a community event) encourage using Parramatta Square as the ferry interchange and I'd rather reflect that as I have with all my other Sydney public transit diagrams. Atkins Road turnback is based on the environmental impact map (I have it saved offline), but you can see the turnback on OSM (I can't link the URL without breaking the template, but just enter "map=18/-33.81554/151.06620" after the # to see the turnback). --SHB2000 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Or just copy https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.81553/151.06562 into your browser for Atkins Road turnback. --SHB2000 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Ponta_da_Espalamaca3.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ponta da Espalamaca seen from the Pico-Faial ferry, Azores. --The Cosmonaut 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is is a nice scene. But the left part is completely unsharp. And the general level of detail and sharpness is quite low. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per August.--Ermell 10:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Minor_masjidi_10.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Minor Mosque (exterior details), Tashkent, Uzbekistan. By User:Humoyun Mehridinov --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this is somehow overprocessed and not really sharp. Maybe it can be at least improved with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 09:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. Красный 10:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp at all. Very low quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Plac_Powstańców_Styczniowych,_Sosnowiec,_Akcja_rozdawania_plakatów_Sosnowca_przez_Towarzystwo_Przyjaciół_Sosnowca,_22_czerwiec_2024_227.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The campaign of handing out posters of Sosnowiec by the Society of Friends of Sosnowiec at Powstańców Styczniowych Square in Sosnowiec, June 22, 2024 --KrzysztofPoplawski 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The verticals must be corrected. --Ermell 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It is a proper used wide-angle lens with some lens distortion. The verticals are mostly good. So I think they could be improved a little, but the image is already QI due to smallness of that issue. --August Geyler (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Augustgeyler. --Smial 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Pecheurs_remballant_leur_materiel_en_fin_de_journée.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Pecheurs remballant leur materiel en fin de journée --Atef Ouni 20:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Well composed. A bit noisy but good. --Augustgeyler 19:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too noisy and distorted. --Milseburg 20:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg Jakubhal 09:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise even visible at 4 MP. Might be possible to fix it with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Караойский_заказник,_большая_песчанка_(9).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Great gerbil in Karaoy sanctuary. Balkhash District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 06:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too blurred. Sorry. --Ermell 09:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me the sharpness is still ok. Please discuss. --Zinnmann 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, cute animal and beautiful composition but simply not sharp enough, not even at 3 MP. --Plozessor 10:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I have to agree.--ArildV 13:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Nebbia_su_colli_e_monti_-_Foreste_Casentinesi_-_Appennino_Tosco_Emiliano_-_GT_01_-_2024_01_28.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Advection fog on hills and the Italian Apenninesː Casentino Forest National Park. --Terragio67 19:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice in the preview. But I'm not shure, if  Level of detail too low meets the criteria. Please discuss. --Milseburg 09:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support LoD seems acceptable, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support sharp enough regarding the rather high resolution. Nice scene, composition, and lighting. --Smial 23:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial.--Tournasol7 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Olympus_National_Park_19.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Peaks of Mount Olympus seen from the blue route, Olympus National Park. --Kallerna 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 19:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right side is leaning out (fixable). --Tournasol7 04:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality now. Thanks for your correction. --Tournasol7 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Agree with Tournasol7, however, the buildings are a really small and unimportant part of the image which is otherwise very good. --Plozessor 15:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Plozessor 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good image with very minor perspective issues at the little buildings. --Augustgeyler 18:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Okay and QI in my eyes. Issues are marginal.--Milseburg 14:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective tweaked. --Kallerna 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Fuente_de_Saint-Michel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_141.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Fuente de Saint-Michel, París, Francia, 2022-10-29 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 10:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inadequate perspective (very low point of view) for that building. --Augustgeyler 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry but I don't understand. If we are too close to the object and we make vertical lines straight, it is not good because it make distortions and looks unnatural. However, when we give up the straight lines and we decide for a low shot of buildings, this is also bad... --Tournasol7 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That is not what wanted to say. Willingly chosen high angle perspectives can be a good decision. At buildings it is hard. The PoV should be very centered and the resulting extreme perspective should support the shape of the building (for example at sharp triangular shapes). --Augustgeyler 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There's also a QI category "Perspective" where this fits in. Just a bit unfortunate that the sides are cropped. --Plozessor 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Люки_25.06.24_СПб_01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A manhole cover at 28 lane of VI --Lvova 05:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I'd suggest a tighter 1:1 crop to get rid of the sunspot. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer not to do this to preserve the sprouts and cobblestones around. Lvova 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry to oppose but additionally the angle is not good. It should have been taken straight downwards. --Augustgeyler 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The overall quality is good enough and I don't think that the reason to decline this image is fair --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. I'm always surprised at what some people present as a quality image. But I'm also surprised that others confirm an image like this one as QI. -- Spurzem 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment So am I. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment This page looked like a very friendly place with very gentle behaviour even during a refusal, but I'm not surprised anymore. Lvova 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The object is rotated, text should be horizontal and the two notches should be in line. Also the sunspot is unfortunate. --Plozessor 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Text may be tilted, but in general it is horizontal. Look at ВД and СССР letters and at 1979 date. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yeah but tilted, that's what I meant. This is an object that clearly has a correct orientation (so that the text is completely horizontal and the upper notch is directly above the lower notch). --Plozessor 04:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very unfortunate lighting, image corners unsharp. --Smial 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Dzerzhinskogo_Street_32,_Tyumen_01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A wooden house, Dzerzhinskogo Street 32, Tyumen, Russia. The corner house with Khokhryakova Street (numbered as #28). --Lvova 03:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Horizontal perspective is not good here. The image was taken slightly form the side. --Augustgeyler 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. Is this green the real color of the probably white frame of the window? -- Spurzem 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It is natural. In the category it is possible to see white ones, but they are not original and the photos are much more late. Lvova 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Augustgeyler, this can be fixed probably. About Spurzem's question, let the photographer answer but to me it seems that the green is natural and the white balance is correct. --Plozessor 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Flying_pink_flamingo.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Flying a single pink flamingo above sebkha halk el menzelI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Was nominated already on May 22 2024 --Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not forbidden to renominate unassessed QI candidates. It just means that nobody reviewed this nomination in the first place. This nomination was never rejected or even reviewed. --Augustgeyler 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry/overprocessed. --Plozessor 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strongly overprocessed. There is a halo around much of the bird. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:S8_zwischen_Geisenbrunn_und_Gilching-Argelsried_03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A train of the Munich S8 line between the stops of Geisenbrunn and Gilching-Argelsried going towards Herrsching passing through LSG Steinberg --Kritzolina 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 17:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bridge pier should be vertical. --Ermell 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough without trying to fix the perspective. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At Berlin 2024 377 - Berlin Cathedral.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Berlin Cathedral --Mike Peel 02:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image is too distorted due to camera angle and perspective correction. The pillars are leaning in. --Augustgeyler 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective correction is well done for me, however the file name could be better. --Tournasol7 10:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    File renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks :) --Tournasol7 14:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:150254_at_Barry_2024-06-22.jpg

edit

  • Nomination 150254 at Barry station. --Suntooooth 18:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Am I right that you are the author of the image who uploaded it to flickr in the first place and later transferred it to Wikimedia – always under creative commons licence? --Augustgeyler 08:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality and resolution below minimum. --Augustgeyler 12:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is poor -- artefacts on the side and the writing not legible. Size is barely >2 MP. --Tagooty 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Borderline resolution, would be acceptable if it would be perfect otherwise but it is not. --Plozessor 08:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Kanika_Chorten_Sani_Zanskar_Ladakh_Jun24_A7CR_00773.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kanika Chorten, said to date from 2nd cent AD, Sani Gompa, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the perspective is not working well. Verticals are leaning in. The point of view is very low. Additionally the obstacle in the upper right corner should be cropped out. --Augustgeyler 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler:  Thank you. for the review. I have adjusted verticals and improved the crop. Please review the new version. Note that this chorten is said to be 1,800 years old so this lines are not very geometrical. It is located inside the small courtyard of the monastery with the only full view being from ground level close by. --Tagooty 05:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great! Thank you for editing. I changed to neutral. The image did improve. I just would like to point out that a higher point of view, resulting in a less upwards tilted camera, would have improved the reproduction of that monument further. --August Geyler (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking good (now). --Plozessor 08:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Aston_Martin_DB12_Volante_IMG_9321.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Aston Martin DB12 Volante in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I would like the picture if it wasn't cropped so tightly. -- Spurzem 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is also an image available, showing the vehicle with a less tighter crop. But for illustrating an article about the DB12, this version might work better. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop is fine for the purpose. Grey car on grey street is a bit unfortunate, but streets are grey so that's not the photographers fault. --Plozessor 08:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_ipogea_Chiesa_San_Sepolcro_Milano.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Chiesa San Sepolcro church in Milano--Moroder 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good quality, is there any way to reduce noise in this picture ? --Benjism89 13:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the comment. I've tried my best. I didn't want to smooth it too much, loosing detail. --Moroder 14:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Some noise but also very high resolution (64mp). Clearly QI imo. --ArildV 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too distorted. The floor looks like being in a slope to the left. Comparing to other images, that's not what the floor is like. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you mean. They are rectangular tiles in perspective. Do you mean that we have to do also a horizontal perspective correction? --Moroder 16:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In that case actually yes. Perfectly straight verticals combined with really crooked horizontals make this picture look very strange. --Plozessor 03:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This little lack should be correctable without difficulties. Therefore I would not decline the image. -- Spurzem 12:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oh come on, no exaggeration, please. A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And in this picture everything seems natural. Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 03:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes come on ! I do not understand this votes ! This picture is very good. The floor is litlle bit leaning but it's not a big distortion. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • And I don't understand why pictures that are leaning vertically by 0.01° are under no circumstance QI while pictures that are leaning horizontally by 30° are perfect QI. In this case, it's actually not the leaning floor that disturbs me but the background - especially as it wouldn't be hard to fix that. I might consider removing my opposing vote, but I will not support it in the current state. (I have a similar issue with these heavily distorted images, like church tower photographed from 2 m in front of it at the ground - but as long as the verticals are vertical, no one complains about the massive distortion.) --Plozessor 09:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it's difficult to have everything straight, the roof, the walls, the floor... Here the floor is leaning. In addition interior photos of buildings are very difficult to take. But I understand your opinion. The Tournasol7's file : File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg has a PC, but I don't think is a massive distortion. But it doesn't matter, I understand too. We just don't agree on this specific point. Have a nice day ;) --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I am sorry to disagree. The floor is not "a little bit leaning". it is strongly distorted in my eyes. This happened due to improper use of a wide angle lens and / or at perspective correction afterwards. But I am here to learn something. Perhaps I am the only one who does see this (at least Plozessor could see it). --Augustgeyler 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is too distorted. If it is not possible to correct the horizontals and the verticals at the same time, then in my opinion it would be better to balance both parameters instead of optimizing one and more or less ignoring the other. --Zinnmann 16:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let me know if the floor is naturally sliding left, but now it seems that the perspective has created a wrong impression. The doors facing to each other should be at the same level, right? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(10).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately due to camera angle and perspective correction the church looks too distorted. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Still acceptable to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs ReneeWrites 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed.--Ermell 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry, a bit late.--Ermell 07:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Kallerna, Ermell; I brightned the image a bit. It's better? --Tournasol7 18:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 07:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_064.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Monkey Puzzle (Araucaria araucana) at Kew Gardens --Mike Peel 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much noise to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 00:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg

    edit

    • Nomination: Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 05:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Review
    •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think intense perspective correction based on a very close and low point of view led to unnatural proportions. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I would skew it (make the right side lower) to reduce the extreme distortion. --Plozessor 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support --Jacek Halicki 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The church tower looks very unnatural due to unfortunate perspective correction. -- Екатерина Борисова 20:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And I'm not agree, it's not a extreme distortion and it not looks very unnatural. Maybe it's a bit too close, but no exaggeration, please. --Tournasol7 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
       Comment You cannot vote for your own photo. Vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Sorry my mistake, I wanted to use the template  Comment. --Tournasol7 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed, extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed.--Ermell 10:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
      Kallerna, Ermell; I brightned the image a bit. It's better? Tournasol7 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
      • much better. Thank you.--Ermell 18:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 08:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    edit
    • Tue 25 Jun → Wed 03 Jul
    • Wed 26 Jun → Thu 04 Jul
    • Thu 27 Jun → Fri 05 Jul
    • Fri 28 Jun → Sat 06 Jul
    • Sat 29 Jun → Sun 07 Jul
    • Sun 30 Jun → Mon 08 Jul
    • Mon 01 Jul → Tue 09 Jul
    • Tue 02 Jul → Wed 10 Jul
    • Wed 03 Jul → Thu 11 Jul