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 July 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 16 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]] 05:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 14, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 11, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 08, 2024

[edit]

July 07, 2024

[edit]

July 06, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

July 04, 2024

[edit]

July 03, 2024

[edit]

July 02, 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:Altendorf_DBAG_Class_411-20240714-RM-151640.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DBAG Class 411 after passing through Altendorf station --Ermell 05:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Compared to the other images it looks slightly  Underexposed and could be fixed easily. --Augustgeyler 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks for the review. --Ermell 22:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Julian_church_in_St-Julien-de-Toursac_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Julian church in Saint-Julien-de-Toursac, Cantal, France. --Tournasol7 04:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 05:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    *  Oppose. Was the photo taken just before a thunderstorm or is it underexposed? In addition, the building looks very distorted despite the vertical lines. Please discuss whether the photo is still a QI. -- Spurzem 14:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vista_panoramica_dalla_fortezza_di_Bertinoro_-_Emilia-Romagna_-_GT_02-_2024-07-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. --Terragio67 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Incorrect use of the "Panorama" template but otherwise a great picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Huge size, but sky is noisy and posterized. --Milseburg 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Monstranz-Christian-Schweling-Köln-1657.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monstrance by Christian Schweling (1657/58), Exhibited in the Cologne Cathedral Treasury, destroyed 1975, rebuilt 1978-1897 by Peter Bolg. --Tuxyso 17:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry but lack of DoF (only the very front is sharp due low f-number). --Plozessor 04:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    It is Not a Studio shot, but taken hand-helt in a museum. imho the quality is at a very high level and the important parts are sharp. I would like to discuss. --Tuxyso 17:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Cyrice_church_of_Broquies_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Round window of the Saint Cyrice church of Broquies, Aveyron, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry to oppose. As there is no reference to the perspective here it looks distorted. A QI of the rosette could be taken from a much higher point of view (like another tower or a drone) or should include some perspective reference to make it easy to understand that this is a perspective shot from down below. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Elbaue_Jerichow_SPA0011_(WDPA_ID_555537432_).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Klietznick observation tower over the Elbe --Georgfotoart 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Low size, too soft, transitions in the sky. --Milseburg 21:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains_(Katon-Karagay).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Too greenish. WB off. Too litle sky. --Milseburg 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Too greenish. --Milseburg 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:VLine_VLocity_-1209_'Michalle_Payne'_arriving_at_Platform_4_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station,_Sunshine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination VLine VLocity -1209 'Michalle Payne' arriving at Platform 4 at Sunshine Railway Station, Sunshine --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Question @Takerlamar: So you are the person who made this image, loaded it to Flickr and afterwards to Commons, right? --Augustgeyler 06:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Comeng_train_operating_a_service_to_Flinders_Street_Station_arriving_at_Platform_1_at_Hawksburn_Station,_South_Yarra_(53187079413).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Comeng train 562M operating a service to Flinders Street arriving at Hawksburn Station, South Yarra, Melbourne, Australia. --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    As with the other images, you created this image, uploaded it to Flickr and to Commons, right? --Georgfotoart 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Elbe_bei_Ferchland_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Steep bank Ferchland --Georgfotoart 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Well composed panorama. But level of detail is just too low here as well as shadows are too dark. Additionally the sharpness is borderline. --Augustgeyler 20:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    OK, revised, new on 15. 07. Thank you very much --Georgfotoart 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
     Info @Georgfotoart: Please keep an eye on the syntax you are using. 1.) Please don't add comments after the end of nominations … July 2024 (UTC)}} but directly before }} or use the QICvote extension. 2.) In this case I decline, which set the nomination to status "Decline" ….jpg|{{/Decline|… . If you now add something new, you must change the status to "Discuss" → ….jpg|{{/Discuss|…. Otherwise the nomination would be autmaticly processed as declined by the bot. --Augustgeyler 19:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the hint --Georgfotoart 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) added from wrong place by --Augustgeyler 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:University_of_Sao_Paulo_campus_2016_009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre do Relógio e Reitoria da Universidade de São Paulo --Mike Peel 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DimiTalen 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion needs to be fixed. --Augustgeyler 15:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. --Smial 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Siemens_train_772M_departing_Platform_2_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station_running_a_Down_service_to_Sunbury.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Siemens train 772M departing Platform 2 at Sunshine Railway Station running a Down service to Sunbury, Melbourne, Australia --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I couldn't find out if the author is a Commoner. User:Takerlamar was uploading it. The source is Flickr and the author is Philip Mallis. So I can't say that Philip Mallis is a Commoner. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, the author is apparently not a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Nieten_einer_im_Abbau_befindlichen_Stahlbrücke.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rivets of a 100-year-old steel bridge under deconstruction. --Augustgeyler 12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A large part of the picture is not in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for reviewing. You might be right. But as this focus decision was intentional to show these old rivets in that nightly situation just before demolishing I'd like to here some more opinions. --Augustgeyler 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The low DoF contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, thus ok IMO. --Plozessor 05:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Kritzolina 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The denoising could have been a bit milder, but low DOF is clearly intentional and ok in this case. --Smial 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_972_IMG_9537.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche 972 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It seems to be out of focus ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sharpness is not optimal, but it would be sufficient for me. However, I still don't understand why the colleague squashes his pictures so flat. With normal cropping it would be a nice photo. -- Spurzem 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The sharpness is borderline, in this case just below minimum for QI in my opinion. --Augustgeyler 15:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The depth of field is a little tight, the crop is a little tight, but at least the background in this parking lot photo is not as terribly distracting as in so many others that have already won awards for quality. Sufficient for an A4-size print. --Smial 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Rosneft_headquarter_(1902).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosneft headquarter building and Kremlevskaya embankment --Юрий Д.К. 16:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Outer parts (especially left side) are to blurry. --Augustgeyler 20:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Digital sharpening did improve it. But I think it is still just not sharp enough. Let's see what other reviewers think. --Augustgeyler 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Bunker_26_--_2024_--_0052.jpg

[edit]

✓ Done Makes me smile a little: wide angle. No. It's the fixed lens of the drone. The angle of view is elevated and not comparable to shots from the ground. Nevertheless, I have aligned the verticals and hope that it's okay. --XRay 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Improved. Sorry for this. But 6,72mm – even if unaware of the sensor size – looks like wide angle, doesn't it? I was not aware of the fact that it is a drone shot. Is the EXIF data the only place where I can find the information about the drone? --August Geyler (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Now the image is technically correctly corrected for perspective, and it looks completely wrong from a bird's eye view. Such a 100% correction does not always improve the "natural" representation. --Smial 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a question that always moves me. It also comes up in my photography courses: What is a natural representation in photography? Naturalness is the view with our eyes from a very specific angle. However, the eye only composes the overall picture (yes, the brain also plays a role) from many individual components, photography has a harder time and only knows one representation. A "long exposure" with the eye is not possible, nor is a photo with many different apertures for individual areas (yet). The same applies to the angle of view. Of course ;-) the slanted lines are more or less normal, but there are also tilt-shift lenses that correct this. Are verticals unnatural from certain angles because they run vertically (parallel)? --XRay 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an example will better explain what I mean: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Smial/correction_of_perspective,_good_and_bad_examples#Views_from_above --Smial 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leuchtturm_Pagensand_Süd_mit_Sockel_(2).jpg

[edit]

✓ Done Greetings --Nightflyer 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weisse_Mauer,_Oberursel_(IMG_20221105_165849-Pano).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Weiße Mauer towards Großer Feldberg (left) and Kolbenberg (right), Oberursel (Taunus) --MB-one 08:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Rather noisy. The right and left edges are strange. --Milseburg 13:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No response --Milseburg 16:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Alexandr_Makedonsky,_Summer_Garden.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Bust of Alexander the Great, Summer Garden, Saint-Petersburg --Lvova 14:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Very nice but unfortunately too soft. --Augustgeyler 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Disagree, let's discuss it. --ReneeWrites 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sorry but I agree, the face is to soft with low level of details imo.--ArildV 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Undecided, DoF is borderline. --Plozessor 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per others, not enough details for a QI taken outside in good lighting conditions. --Benjism89 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Hohemarkenbusch,_Baumstamm_--_2024_--_4411.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Maybe I don't understand enough about art, maybe even nothing at all. But I would like to ask you to discuss whether this photo based on a tree trunk is a quality image. -- Spurzem 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I don't understand too. --Sebring12Hrs 05:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Because photographic art and creativity are also part of photography. Wikimedia Commons is a media archive and includes a variety of genres. --XRay 09:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Because the technical quality (this is what we judge here on this page) of this artistic photo is very high. Believe me, try experimenting yourself for a bit, you will see what I mean. --Kritzolina 10:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hello Kritzolina, maybe I should also present my often mentioned attempt to photograph the non-existent black cat in the dark basement without light. Perhaps the result would also be considered great art. ;-) Best regards and please no offense -- Spurzem 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Photographing non-existing cats in dark basements ist not a well established photography technique. It it were, you might get a quality image out of it. And I don't take offense here, but other people who do good work in those fields of photography you are not comfortable with, might. The comparison is offensive in nature, as it compares doing really stupidand nonsensical things with photography that requires skills, technical expertise and inspiration. Please don't take offense for me pointing this out. --Kritzolina 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support As we already discussed few months ago, IMO the only problem with artistic images like this is the lack of objective criteria. So we can only judge it subjectively - and this picture pleases my sense of aesthetics. --Plozessor 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment It looks to me like someone has a very unclear sight and is in a forest with sunlight shining through --PantheraLeo1359531 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Shouldn't we be focusing on the technical quality instead of whether this is art or not? --Zzzs 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Technical quality is one aspect, composition and image design are another. And the technical quality alone cannot be assessed across the board, because, for example, a sharp image can have good technical quality, but so can a blurred one. In my opinion, a good depiction of motion blur, for example, is also a good technical quality. With some images, however, technical quality is not the main focus, other reasons prevail. It is therefore not easy to evaluate a picture using simple criteria. --XRay 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Blurry. --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Apogónido_(Ostorhinchus_compressus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_185.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Ochre-striped cardinalfish (Ostorhinchus compressus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose I think it lacks sharpness, it's a bit noisy. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I indeed believe that there is enough level of detail here for an underwater QI. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Indeed good enough for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support as per Plozessor. --Radomianin 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The head is dark and noisy, not enough sharpness sorry El Golli Mohamed 12:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Radomianin 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Hauptplatz_27_in_Enns_(1).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Building at Hauptplatz 27 in Enns, Upper Austria, Austria. --Tournasol7 04:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfortunately the building looks too distorted due too intense perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Perspective is ok here IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 05:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral It looks like the building is wider at the top than at the bottom. Is that really the case? Further it seems a bit dark. -- Spurzem 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info slightly distorted and slightly dark --Georgfotoart 11:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Emirates,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA43985).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Entrance booth to the Emirates static display area at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 08:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Right side leaning in a bit. IMHO top crop is acceptable. --C messier 22:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose People clearly recognizable --Georgfotoart 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment That's not relevant for QI. Plus, the photograph was created with an official permission by the organizers of ILA. --MB-one 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    • People at public events in Germany may be recognizable on pictures as long as they're not the primary subject. But  Oppose until perspective is fixed. --Plozessor 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    • OK, but the image section is still unfavorable  Oppose --Georgfotoart 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info only one vote per reviewer! --Augustgeyler 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your reviews. Have applied perspective correction. --MB-one 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Mon 08 Jul → Tue 16 Jul
    • Tue 09 Jul → Wed 17 Jul
    • Wed 10 Jul → Thu 18 Jul
    • Thu 11 Jul → Fri 19 Jul
    • Fri 12 Jul → Sat 20 Jul
    • Sat 13 Jul → Sun 21 Jul
    • Sun 14 Jul → Mon 22 Jul
    • Mon 15 Jul → Tue 23 Jul
    • Tue 16 Jul → Wed 24 Jul