Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 12 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]] 02:01, 12 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 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]

December 2, 2024

[edit]

December 1, 2024

[edit]

November 30, 2024

[edit]

November 29, 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:Sculpture_of_Banglabandhu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A sculpture of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur RahmanI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --ManikDas1122 16:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition is good. But it's a smartphone-image with lack of detail. Sorry. --Alexander-93 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • That's a standard assessment, but can you be more specific about what details are missing? For me it is a  Weak support. -- Spurzem 16:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Categorization? Not sharp even at 4mpix. --Kallerna 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, halo around the sculpture, noise in background. Also lack of categorization - it should have a category for the person depicted, for the type and location of artwork (something like 'Bronze sculptures in Dhaka'), and the artist. Then it should have a more specific location (where in Dhaka was it taken, what is the building in the background) and the name of the artist in the description. And ... there is no Freedom of Panorama in Bangladesh. Probably it is now even allowed to upload a picture of this sculpture to Commons. --Plozessor 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low detail, poor lighting... --Peulle 11:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:0222_26р_шишкина_нива.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 11:35, 11 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:35, 11 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)
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:Chittagong_War_Cemetery_(12).jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Clearly not a QI IMO because of the oversaturation and the low sharpness. Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. --Plozessor 05:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Chittagong_War_Cemetery,_Chattogram,_Bangladesh.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chittagong War Cemetery, Bangladesh --Md. T Mahtab 07:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition, but the grass is unnatural green. Please reduce saturation and contrast --Michielverbeek 07:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 04:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated, a lot of foreground that is more or less OOF. Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. --Plozessor 06:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:33, 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)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:32, 11 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:PapaNoel-MunicipalidadTandil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Santa Claus at the Municipality of Tandil, Argentina. Decorations prepared for Christmas 2024 --Ezarate 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Right part is leaning to the right --Michielverbeek 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, thanks --Ezarate 12:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fix made it worse, now there's a blank part on the left. The image also feels a bit undersaturated, but that can be fixed as well. --AVDLCZ 20:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • fixed, thanks!! --Ezarate 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version, which should be good now. -- Spurzem 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Памятник_Батюшкову.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The poet's monument (by Shiningstream) --FBilula 12:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, handsome horse. --An insect photographer 14:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --An insect photographer 18:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's CA's on horse's tail and someone's disturbing head in bottom-right corner. But the main thing is that this image is in danger of deleting from Commons because it depicts modern sculpture (author died in 2006), and there's no FoP in Russia for modern art. --Екатерина Борисова 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Red_Arrows_BAe_Hawk_Formation_Royal_International_Air_Tattoo_2024_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red Arrows BAe Hawk T.1A flying the "5-4 Split" manoeuvre --Julian Herzog 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Wow ! FP candidate to me ! --Sebring12Hrs 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the out of focus airplanes need sharpening.--Tzim78 13:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I have increased the sharpening. --Julian Herzog 15:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality Thank You --Tzim78 14:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The airplanes flying right are sharp. You can't really take a picture of airplanes flying in opposite directions at high speed with both being sharp. --Plozessor 05:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. The airplanes in the front are the focus of the photo, and they're perfectly sharp. This is an incredible action shot. ReneeWrites 10:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 23:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Donaustrasse_21_in_Riedlingen_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Donaustraße 21 in Riedlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 07:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed --Plozessor 08:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad weather, but light is ok. --Sebring12Hrs 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor.--Ermell 10:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Sebring12Hrs --Milseburg 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Zamek_Homole_(03).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Homole Castle 1 --Jacek Halicki 02:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there's noise, a lot of CA in the trees, and these persons ... --Plozessor 05:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support (support assumed per CR rules) I disagree --Jacek Halicki 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @BigDom: No support because Jacek is the nominator. --Plozessor 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-02,_DD_05-07_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 09:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Tzim78 13:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (oppose assumed per CR rules) Before promoted, I'd like sufficient categorization please. From what location is it taken? From the Citadel perhaps? Coords are welcome as well --A.Savin 16:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done no need though to move to CR for such a request, Poco a poco 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Wieso man so etwas erst anfragen muss, bleibt wohl ein Rätsel... --A.Savin 02:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mural_en_Aeropuerto_Río_de_Janeiro.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mural at Rio de Janeiro Airport. --Rjcastillo 01:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the authorship really sufficiently attributed here? What about the mural's author?--Milseburg 12:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until Milseburg's query is addressed. --BigDom 02:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is found at the Rio de Janeiro airport, I don't know who the author could be.--Rjcastillo 20:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It would take some investigation to determine, but the FoP notice on the file page states: "Commercial use is allowed, as long as the artist's work is properly attributed", which it clearly isn't here. BigDom (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks BigDom. I agree. Can I withdraw my nomination?. --Rjcastillo 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 23:23, 9 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 02:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Meran,_Panorama_(Blick_vom_Pulverturm).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramaansicht von Meran--Rolf Kranz 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose needs perspective correction --A. Öztas 21:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see what perspektive should be corrected. -- Spurzem 09:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: Look at the buildings in the left half of the picture: The closer they are to the edge, the more they tilt – the image is very curved there. The processing also looks kind of weird to me, especially the snowy mountain, but others can discuss about that. --A. Öztas 22:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the reviews. I have uploaded a new version. It is a panorama made up of a number of individual shots to show the special geographical position of Merano in a valley basin from a very wide angle.--Rolf Kranz 09:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately the new version has not fixed the problem, but there are now some stitching errors, especially at the top of the steeple of the church on the right. --A. Öztas 12:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Prominent stitching errors now. --Plozessor 13:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Many thanks for the helpful reviews. In an effort to eliminate the distortion, I neglected the stitching. I hope that the new version will now take the justified objections into account.--Rolf Kranz 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, looks good now. --Plozessor 05:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --A. Öztas 20:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Fan_Zone_Mainufer,_Frankfurt_am_Main_(P1190143).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supporter of the Spanish national team during a public screening of the final of the UEFA Euro 2024 at Fanzone Mainufer, Frankfurt am Main --MB-one 22:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but the cropped man on the right is dristraying. --An insect photographer 12:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Tighter crop to get rid of the distraction as much as possible --MB-one 22:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, with the new crop -- Jakubhal 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Gourdon_-_Jardins_du_Sénéchal_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gourdon (Lot, France) - Sénéchal gardens, near the same-name mansion --Benjism89 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment sensor dust on top left corner --A. Öztas 21:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again, why is this here? --Plozessor 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Several dust spots, overall sharpness. --Plozessor 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've removed the dust spots. But I can't do much about the sharpness (weather was terrible on that day ...) --Benjism89 17:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness/detail, sorry. BigDom 11:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 11:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:วัดมหาธาตุ_สุโขทัย1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Mahathat, Sukhothai, Thailand (by Athichitra) --Felino Volador 04:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious artefacts of a sky replacement. --Julian Herzog 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious artefacts of a sky replacement. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sunrise in the background is apparently a stock photo or stolen from somewhere else. --Plozessor 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Do we have a category to tag such obvious fakes? -- PtrQs (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This picture took 1st place at Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 (Thailand), unfortunately – as here – it was not communicated anywhere that the sky was apparently replaced. Apart from artefacts and the lack of communication, all edges – especially of the columns – which have points of contact with the sky, are blurred. --A. Öztas 23:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 04 Dec → Thu 12 Dec
  • Thu 05 Dec → Fri 13 Dec
  • Fri 06 Dec → Sat 14 Dec
  • 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