Commons:Quality images candidates

(Redirected from Quality images candidates)
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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 December 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 December 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 December 15 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]] 17:17, 15 December 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).


December 15, 2024

edit

December 14, 2024

edit

December 13, 2024

edit

December 12, 2024

edit

December 11, 2024

edit

December 10, 2024

edit

December 9, 2024

edit

December 8, 2024

edit

December 7, 2024

edit

December 6, 2024

edit

December 5, 2024

edit

December 4, 2024

edit

December 3, 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:Baños_romanos,_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-03,_DD_24-29_PAN.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 08:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Let's discuss about the top crop here please. I know that this is not the subject here, but there are only a few pixels left, so that it looks as something is missing here. --Milseburg 11:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of bad stitching error (antennas in mid-air on top of one building). But the image is also weirdly distorted and not too sharp overall. --Plozessor 12:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Long-tailed_Broadbill.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Long-tailed Broadbill at Mahananda Wildlife, West Bengal, India. By User:Shiv's fotografia --Satdeep Gill 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs specific CAT for the species. CA on tail and branch to be fixed. Seems oversaturated? --Tagooty 04:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 13:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. The CAs are still very obvious. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Significant amount of CA. --Plozessor 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:0413маура.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Maura mountain (by Марина Мурашова) --FBilula 12:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 21:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Regarding the camera used, resolution is too low. Probably downscaled too much. --Milseburg 11:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Apparently downscaled or cropped, but still resolution is high enough IMO and sharpness is very good. --Plozessor 12:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:0248ашишкина_нива.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Shiskina Niva (by Марина Мурашова) --FBilula 12:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 21:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Regarding the camera used, resolution is too low. Probably downscaled too much. --Milseburg 11:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apparently downscaled or cropped, but still resolution is high enough IMO and sharpness is very good. --Plozessor 12:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Стрельна._Орловский_парк._Башня-руина01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination "Ruin tower" (before restoration) in Orlovsky park, Strelna, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 00:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Unfortunately low detail --A. Öztas 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Стрельна._Орловский_парк._Башня-руина02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination "Ruin tower" (before restoration) in Orlovsky park, Strelna, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 00:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Unfortunately low detail --A. Öztas 02:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Усадьба_А._Ф._Орлова._Конюшня_(западная),_флагодержатель.jpg

edit

 

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Pag_(HR),_Veliko_Blato_--_2022_--_0074.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Veliko Blato in Croatia --A. Öztas 00:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose too noisy, low level of details. --Rbrechko 13:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version --A. Öztas 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Pag_(HR),_Sonnenuntergang_--_2022_--_0144.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset in Croatia, seen from Pag --A. Öztas 00:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Dust spots and a little bit noisy as for me. --Rbrechko 13:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Could you tell me about the dust spots? I checked the image twice but can't find any. --A. Öztas 15:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Comment Sure. You can find one under the second bird from the right side on light place on the water. There are also a few on the left side in the sky, not so far from the edge of the frame. The same on right side. --Rbrechko 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Zadar_(HR),_Meerenge_von_Maslenica_--_2022_--_0024.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Maslenica strait in Croatia --A. Öztas 00:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharped. --Rbrechko 13:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version --A. Öztas 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  Comment Very goid compo, but not very sharp indeed at full size on a computer. --Sebring12Hrs 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO sharp enough, given the high DoF. --Plozessor 05:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Überwasserkirche,_Giebelhüüskesmarkt_--_2024_--_6568.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Christmas decorations on a hut at the Christmas market “Giebelhüüskesmarkt”, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Are you sure about this candidate? there is nothing sharp here --Poco a poco 08:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm sure of it ;-) In my opinion, the picture looks better with a slight blur. It is also sorted into the category Category:Intentionally blurred images. Let's discuss it a bit. --XRay 08:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Objects in the image not even close to sharp. Moreover, there is nothing meaningful in the image. -- Hridoy Kundu 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • To emphasize this once again: Sharpness is not important in the picture. The image is intentionally blurred to emphasize the structures (reindeer) more clearly and strongly. This makes the light stand out much better. --XRay 14:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand what you say but I believe that doing so the image fails the QI requiments. If I take a picture with a forgotten manual focus I can always say that's intentional. This isn't what QI is about. --Poco a poco 08:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course, a blurred photo can be taken by chance. Here, however, it was actually intentional. But you're right, some photos always have a hard time with the QIC. But I also want to show that there are other ways of taking photos. --XRay 11:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, I accept your artistic choice (thus I will not oppose), but I don't agree that the intentional blur is helpful for this picture and thus also can't support it. --Plozessor 05:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Чайковского_10_04.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Sculptures on the facade of former Buturlina mansion. Chaykovsky Street, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 01:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Tilted --A. Öztas 03:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please be more specific. Where is it tilted? I think that horizontal alignment is OK here. As for the verticals, they are natural for shooting the upper part of the building from the ground. Straightening too much for the sake of verticals will distort the proportions of the picture, as we have seen many times here. --Екатерина Борисова 06:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    The building is leaning to the right, see the pillars and the asymmetry of the window for that. That does not come from shooting from the ground, but from not positioning centered in front of the subject when taking the photo. --A. Öztas 15:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hmm. Maybe it sounds strange, but looking at the other pictures in the category I come to the conclusion that after the restoration, the right pillar became a little higher than the left (unfortunately, modern restoration in Saint Petersburg is not very high-quality here and there). But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I don't think this tilt is very critical, but let's hear what others have to say --Екатерина Борисова 00:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:46-251-0004_Dobromyl_Castle_RB.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Castle ruins in Dobromyl, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Artefacts at the transition from the burnt-out sky, crop at the right (tree) and sharpness could be better, subject seems to lean --A. Öztas 00:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Info Deployed new version with fixes. --Rbrechko 13:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_Sakerfalke-20240908-RM-111006-6.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Falco cherrug at the Bavarian Hunting Falconry Center in Tambach Castle Wildlife Park during the birds of prey flight demonstration --Ermell 06:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Some parts of the bird are blown out. Fixable? --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the review.Ermell 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It helps if you decline than I send it to CR. --Ermell 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • What do you think? --Ermell 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 05:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:20230312_Crocus_vernus_01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination A bumblebee inside a flower of a Spring Crocus (Crocus vernus) in Sulzbach in Saarland --FlocciNivis 18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bumblebee is out of focus, flash might've worked if shot closer, not looking great --Горбунова М.С. 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flowers blown out. --Plozessor 12:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 12:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Winklern_10.-Oktober-Straße_67_Stromzuleitung_10122024_1239.jpg.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Post of the overhead power line at the residential house on 10. Oktober Straße #67 in Winklern, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose I'm sorry, but the blurred thing near the bottom edge is disturbing --Jakubhal 05:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      Comment @Jakubhal: Thanks for your review. Improved version uploaded. —- Johann Jaritz 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. The smudge is much less prominent, but part of it is still visible below the chimney. Now, I'm not so sure, but I'm still leaning toward the opposing vote. Please send the image for consensual review if you want --Jakubhal 07:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Озеро_Белое._Рыбаки_на_закате.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Russky Sever National Park (by Olga1969) --FBilula 13:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment It needs more specific cats about what we see in the picture --Poco a poco 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I added some categories, but I don't think that this image looks like QI. Too much of the foreground is out of focus and other parts are not sharp enough. --Екатерина Борисова 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Picture is borderline but IMO ok; however, description is too generic. The description says only that it's in the Russian North National Park; from categorization we know the name of the lake but that alone covers 1,130 km². Description should be more specific. --Plozessor 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know these places well, but I searched the Internet. It seems that this is the coast near the city of Belozersk, although I'm not sure. I can add the category, but I keep thinking that it's not QI. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Added the coords, but agree with Екатерина: quality here is insufficient. Красный 05:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Acceptable for me now. --Plozessor 06:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 06:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:0222_26р_шишкина_нива.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Shiskina Niva (by Марина Мурашова) --FBilula 12:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Quite a lot of color noise --MB-one 13:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 16:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful, but too soft IMO --Екатерина Борисова 23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO acceptable for a picture with (intentionally) high f-number taken in twillight. --Plozessor 05:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Plozessor Jakubhal 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Question There are some peculiar red and black dots in the trees on the left of the road in the background of the photo that are furthest away from the camera. Could this be fixed? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Photo looks exactly like photos shot at that time of the day, not as much noise as can be and softness is expected, not an ideal picture, but definitely of good quality. Support getting rid of coloured dots and getting colour noise lower in the foreground--Горбунова М.С. 13:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The resolution is rather low in relation to the camera used. It looks scaled down to achieve better quality. But the issues mentioned above therefor exist. --Milseburg 14:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. Also nothing has happened regarding the issues mentioned above. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:20240514_UrbanArt_Biennale_02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The sculpture Deus ex Machina by Rocco und seine Brüder in the Völklingen ironworks --FlocciNivis 21:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose two strong lights in the back are distracting and second, from this view, you cannot understand what this even is --The Blue Rider 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don't think that the two lights are too disctracting and I don't think that it is difficult to understand that this is an artwork consisting of a tank and stained glass windows --FlocciNivis 18:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support The two lights are distracting on the picture but so they are in reality. The picture is just resembling what a visitor on the site would see. Quality is good. --Plozessor 05:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per Plozessor. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 12:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Nectaring_of_Pareronia_hippia_(Fabricius,_1787)_-_Indian_Wanderer(Female)_WLB_8.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Open wing Nectaring of Pareronia hippia (Fabricius, 1787) - Indian Wanderer(Female) --Sandipoutsider 18:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. Usually I like more natural background, but this one looks very interesting. --Lvova 22:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The abruptly blurry thorax of the butterfly looks really odd. Was this strongly sharpened? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Question Tending towards support, but also wondering about Robert's point. How was this picture taken? Was there focus stacking involved or AI sharpening or background replacement? --Plozessor 05:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Thorax is blurry because there were no stacking, it looks like focus is closer than that, on wings and the foremost flower parts. --Горбунова М.С. 13:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:A_temple_inside_the_Achyutaraya_complex_(01).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination A temple inside the Achyutaraya complex --I.Mahesh 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 21:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky is clipped, there is no detail left. --BigDom 14:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Actually the sky is not completely white, it has some blue tones that could be made visible. But the subject is the temple and the bright sky is not really disturbing IMO. --Plozessor 05:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose In fact, the foliage of the trees in the left corner (and also some of the foliage on the right side) show clearly that there is some loss of detail due to too much light ("ausgefressene Lichter" in German). This may be criticized as pixel peeping, though. Otherwise, this is a nice photo. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:IAA_2024,_Hanover_(P1200208).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Iveco eMoovy at IAA Transportation 2024 --MB-one 14:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The subject should be more in focus, there also a person hovering into the car, but most importantly the light is too blue on the left side of the picture. --The Blue Rider 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done cropped closer to main subject. The person inspecting the vehicle and the light color are both not defects but part of the scene. --MB-one 09:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks OK to me. This lighting is very common at these kinds of exhibitions. BigDom 00:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks to the author's explanations, it becomes clear that this image is OK. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Aerial,_Heidelberg_(P1180511).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Aerial view of the old town of Heidelberg --MB-one 13:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Strong green tint. --Kallerna 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done fixed WB. Thanks for the review --MB-one 14:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me now. ReneeWrites 10:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Marktplatz_10_in_Riedlingen_(1).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Marktplatz 10 in Riedlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 07:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 10:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Underexposed --Plozessor 05:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The roof is a bit overprocessed, right at sky level. Could you do anything about that Tournasol7 ? I agree that is a bit underexposed, but the light is natural to me, weather is bad. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I removed CAs from the roof, that's the reason why it seems a bit overprocessed, but I can't make it better. Tournasol7 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  Comment Yet another bad weather photo, but without rain. -- Spurzem 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   New version uploaded. --Tournasol7 11:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, now it's ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:46-206-0061_Kizliv_Wooden_Church_RB.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Wooden church in Kizliv, Lviv region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose bottom crop, noisy sky --A. Öztas 21:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Fixable. --Ermell 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks. Reduced noise in the sky. --Rbrechko 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok IMO. --Plozessor 05:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective. Both sides are leaning in.--Peulle 09:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    •   Comment Deployed new version with fixes. --Rbrechko 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 02:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

edit
  • Sat 07 Dec → Sun 15 Dec
  • Sun 08 Dec → Mon 16 Dec
  • Mon 09 Dec → Tue 17 Dec
  • Tue 10 Dec → Wed 18 Dec
  • Wed 11 Dec → Thu 19 Dec
  • Thu 12 Dec → Fri 20 Dec
  • Fri 13 Dec → Sat 21 Dec
  • Sat 14 Dec → Sun 22 Dec
  • Sun 15 Dec → Mon 23 Dec