Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 June 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 June 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 June 11 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]] 04:38, 11 June 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).


June 11, 2024

[edit]

June 10, 2024

[edit]

June 9, 2024

[edit]

June 8, 2024

[edit]

June 7, 2024

[edit]

June 6, 2024

[edit]

June 5, 2024

[edit]

June 4, 2024

[edit]

June 3, 2024

[edit]

June 2, 2024

[edit]

June 1, 2024

[edit]

May 31, 2024

[edit]

May 30, 2024

[edit]

May 29, 2024

[edit]

May 28, 2024

[edit]

May 27, 2024

[edit]

May 26, 2024

[edit]

May 25, 2024

[edit]

May 23, 2024

[edit]

May 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:Stealth_up-close_2024-05-08_02.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Stealth with a car at the top of the top hat. --Suntooooth 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but the image is tilted cw and there are compression artifacts at the vehicle. --Augustgeyler 10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Genuine question, how can there be compression artifacts when this is a PNG made from a RAW file (.dng)? --Suntooooth 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There must have been some processing involved. It might happen when de-noising is applied. --Augustgeyler 21:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Clock_tower_at_the_Münchner_Residenz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clock tower at the Münchner Residenz --AuHaidhausen 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Unerexposed IMO. Fixable? Красный 15:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Now? thank you--~~~~
  •  Support Good quality. --Красный 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Quality is good, but I can't figure out if this blue color is an artistic look or a failure. Please discuss --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extreme blue cast. --Plozessor 06:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I appreciate the time you took to address other people's comments, the end result looks beautiful. ReneeWrites 13:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Common_Dandelion_Radès_forest.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common Dandelion Radès forest. By User:Smailtn --TOUMOU 08:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Grainy --Poco a poco 09:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The criticism is not entirely unjustified. Nevertheless: It is an atmospheric and sharp image. I like it and I am in favor of QI. -- Spurzem 10:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco. In addition, this image was clearly miscategorized (no flowers visible, just fruits) and also misidentified (angular stem, achenes very different from Taraxacum officinale). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too grainy/noisy. Could be fixed with better RAW conversion though. --Plozessor 06:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Velo_24,_Berlin_(VB243553).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Steppenwolf pedelec citybike at VELOBerlin 2024 at Tempelhofer Feld, Berlin --MB-one 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 18:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the background is too cluttered. The cut off person is quite distracting. --Zinnmann 20:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Zinnmann. --Sebring12Hrs 07:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bicycle does not stand out from the bicycles in the background. The person is distracting too. --Plozessor 06:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Poestlingsbergkirche,_Linz_(P1130983).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wallfahrtskirche zu den Sieben Schmerzen Mariä auf dem Pöstlingberg, Linz --MB-one 21:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment This looks somehow tilted. The main church is fine but the other buildings (especially on the left) are looking distorted. --Plozessor 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are burned out details at the buildings and  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination a bee foragingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Please include categories for location before nomination --MB-one 08:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment okay, i will do when i return home --Skander zarrad 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The entire bee is in focus. I'm not terribly concerned that not every part of every flower is. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per ReneeWrites. --Plozessor 06:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination a bee foraging 2I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one's more tricky, as not the entire body of the bee is in focus, but the parts that are are amazingly detailed. I also adore the pose. I doubt it'll pass review but it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Supporting this. --Plozessor 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Clark_Lake_Park_in_Kent,_Washington_-_29.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clark Lake Park in Kent, Washington --Roc0ast3r 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It seems perspective needs to be improved. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective is still not within the rules and level of detail is very low here. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 06:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_London_2024_109.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roadworks on Baker Street, London, revealing underground piping. --Mike Peel 07:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quality good but slightly leaning out on both sides! --Scotch Mist 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective redone, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left ok now but right still slightly leaning out! --Scotch Mist 06:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, I used the lamppost on the right, but guess it's not straight. Perspective redone using part of a building, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky and some details next to it are burned out. --Augustgeyler 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Jacobite_train_from_the_rear_at_Mallaig_station.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Jacobite train, seen from the rear at Mallaig rail station in Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand. It's in focus and well exposed. What kind of detail is missing? Grendelkhan 10:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong processing of your camera (phone) led to loss of most of the detail of any texture / surface in that image. It is a common issue with mobile phones. And in this case, due to dimmed light, the effect is quite strong.--Augustgeyler 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Level of Detail seems borderline to me (as Augustgeyler said, smartphones hardly take good pictures except in bright sunlight). However, the picture is also leaning out and underexposed. --Plozessor 07:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mallaig_coastal_view.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The coastline at Mallaig, Scotland, as seen from a little ways up a hill. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here due to intense camera processing. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with the too strong distortion, but this should be fixable by skewing it (making the right side lower/smaller). --Plozessor 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) immature Sfax.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Slender-billed gull (Chroicocephalus genei) immature --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syrio 12:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed just wrong identification of the species, it is not a Slender-billed_gull but a Yellow-legged gull --El Golli Mohamed 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support El Golli Mohamed You could simply fix the category ;) --Plozessor 03:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done It was my error and El Golli Mohamed is right to wait for me to correct it. Charlesjsharp 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Now  Support. --Smial 08:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A830_in_Mallaig_city_center.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The A830 road as it passes through the city center of Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, I think it's fine. Let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow, please explain. It's in focus and well exposed at around 12 MP; what kind of detail do you mean? --Grendelkhan 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail seems fine for me. --MB-one 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. Just so much mobile phone processing made any texture disappear. --Augustgeyler 08:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are at least fifty other QI taken with this phone model; I don't think that the processing is generally held to be a problem. See https://w.wiki/AK7R. Grendelkhan 11:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The quality in this images sometimes show way less detail than a 12 years old DSLR would provide. In some scenarios with bright light nad good contrast the results might be OK. But in some other situations, like here, the over processing really makes the result too poor to become QI. --Augustgeyler 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, overprocessed. That there are QIs taken with a Pixel XL doesn't make all Pixel XL pictures QIs. --Plozessor 03:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed the perspective. Grendelkhan 05:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Better, there is a slight cw tilt and a bit of noise but overall I move to  Neutral now Poco a poco 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, lack of detail, halos around the object. Not bad for a night shot with a smartphone, but IMO not good enough for a QI. --Plozessor 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2483.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there was to much perspective corretion involved. The building looks annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of ordeal, huh? The picture's fine, let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes please dicuss. It is not only about PC. It think it was taken from a position too low and too close, forcing the camera to be tilted up too much. --Augustgeyler 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 08:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The lines are vertical now. But I am sorry, the perspective corrections are borderline. Due the a short distance and very low point of view the verticals had to be corrected very much resulting an a bit too unnatural reproduction of that building. --August Geyler (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sabine_Scholt_at_Republica_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sabine Scholt and Tom Buhrow at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 19:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough detail IMO --MB-one 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I see enough detail at Sabine Scholt. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Absolutely acceptable for available light photography, and very good composition. --Smial 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_larve_de_coccinelle_qui_dévore_un_pucerons.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A ladybug larva that devours an aphidI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough DoF to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • short dof, but the head and the prey are clearly visible, and no time to close further given the speed --Skander zarrad 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I improved the overall sharpness a bit, but I can't increase the dof --Skander zarrad 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not cancel my vote ! Are you serious ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Dear Sebring12Hrs I don't think he canceled your vote, he is new her, he want just fix the photo,Thank you for your understanding TOUMOU 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • But he can't fix lack of DOF.  Oppose for same reason. --Plozessor 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne_Kaun_at_Republica_2024_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anne Kaun at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I think the woman is not sharp enough and ther is some lack of detail. No QI for me. --Alexander-93 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I take into account that this is not a studio shot, but was photographed in available light and that the image is significantly larger than six mpixels, then the quality is quite acceptable. --Smial 13:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not even sharp when downscaled to 3 MP. --Plozessor 03:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry.--Ermell 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good image. But like the other statet, it just not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Аллегория_дня2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Allegory of Day (bust in Summer Garden), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ploozessor 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs some perspective correction and there are some really prominent blue fringes to the right. --C messier 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the upper right corner --Nikride 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:La_cathédrale_de_la_Major_vue_depuis_le_parvis_du_Mucem.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Major Cathedral of Marseille seen from the Mucem forecourt. --Remontees 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good picture but needs slight perspective correction --Plozessor 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Is it better? --Remontees 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment Others might still find it not 'vertical' enough, but IMO it's good now. --Plozessor 06:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
        •  Comment I agree with you, I corrected the verticals. Thanks for your help. --Remontees 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning too much to me, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is ok for me. --Zinnmann 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose There is just a little to much distortion here, especially on the right side of the cathedral. --Augustgeyler 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appropriate credit should be given to the SVG elements you used. E.g. the fish are from File:Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin.svg but those are not listed anywhere in the description. I also wonder why you chose a depiction of the griffins with short tails when they have long, lion-like tails in all the source images or why both wings are pointed up when in all the source images they have one wing pointed up and one down. ReneeWrites 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The source thing is done, by the way, sa I told to the other, there is free stylistic form for the blazon (please read in the file desc {coa blazon}) --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Where exactly can I find the blazoning text? --Smial 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 03 Jun → Tue 11 Jun
  • Tue 04 Jun → Wed 12 Jun
  • Wed 05 Jun → Thu 13 Jun
  • Thu 06 Jun → Fri 14 Jun
  • Fri 07 Jun → Sat 15 Jun
  • Sat 08 Jun → Sun 16 Jun
  • Sun 09 Jun → Mon 17 Jun
  • Mon 10 Jun → Tue 18 Jun
  • Tue 11 Jun → Wed 19 Jun