Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

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]

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. (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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


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.
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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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 May 27 2018 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 can not 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 are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

May 27, 2018[edit]

Blütenstand einer Weinrebe

May 26, 2018[edit]

May 25, 2018[edit]

May 24, 2018[edit]

May 23, 2018[edit]

May 22, 2018[edit]

May 21, 2018[edit]

May 20, 2018[edit]

May 19, 2018[edit]

May 18, 2018[edit]

May 17, 2018[edit]

May 16, 2018[edit]

May 15, 2018[edit]

May 14, 2018[edit]

May 13, 2018[edit]

May 12, 2018[edit]

May 11, 2018[edit]

May 07, 2018[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 Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg  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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Spruce_trees_lit_by_midnight_sun,_Ivvavik_National_Park,_YT.jpg[edit]

Spruce trees lit by midnight sun, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg

File:Lower_Falls_1.jpg[edit]

Lower Falls 1.jpg

  • Nomination Lower Falls, Old Mans Cave, Hocking Hills State Park-- Sixflashphoto 02:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Oversaturated --Daniel Case 05:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Re-done --Sixflashphoto 11:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Park_Sentmaring_--_2018_--_0005.jpg[edit]

Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2018 -- 0005.jpg

  • Nomination Natural Monument in the Park Sentmaring in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I was wondering a bit what's actually in the picture :-) Is it a bark? From what tree? --Podzemnik 04:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed the description and the categorization. And yes, it's a bark. --XRay 16:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Nice picture. -- Suisant7 14:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Watersnuffel_(Enallagma_cyathigerum)_d.j.b.jpg[edit]

Watersnuffel (Enallagma cyathigerum) d.j.b.jpg

  • Nomination Watersnuffel (Enallagma cyathigerum). Head of the common blue damselfly.
    --Famberhorst 05:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality, nice composition. --GT1976 05:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose female out of focus. Charlesjsharp 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Gotta agree with Charles on this. -- Ikan Kekek 06:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg  Support Somewhat low DOF. --Smial 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Edificio_en_la_Gauchtière_100,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-11,_DD_45.jpg[edit]

Edificio en la Gauchtière 100, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-11, DD 45.jpg

  • Nomination Building in Gauchtière 100, Montreal, Canada --Poco a poco 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Insufficient quality. Bottom cut and distortion --The Photographer 19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
✓  New version , can you please have a new look? --Poco a poco 15:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I´m sorry but this image has a strong noise, and the bottom is cut also. IMHO, maybe the noise come from a excesive sharpening --The Photographer 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we please discuss it? My intention was to show the wooden outstanding architectural elements, which are definitely not cropped. Quality doesn't look bad either to me. --Poco a poco 20:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Two things: firstly, I think the composition is OK if the goal is to focus in the wooden parts. It's not easy to see this, though, since there is no such specification in the description. I would encourage you to be more specific so that reviewers can easily see your intentions. Secondly, The Photographer is right: there is noise, and also what looks like some kind of processing problems. Not being an expert, I'm not sure I'm using the correct words, but I can see that the end product is not a clean and crisp image.--Peulle 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Neues_Rathaus_München_2018.jpg[edit]

Neues Rathaus München 2018.jpg

  • Nomination New Town Hall, Munich, Germany. --Pro2 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I think the bottom crop is too tight --Podzemnik 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - The building to the left of the Rathaus is a little unsharp, but the Rathaus itself is quite well depicted. I agree that more space in front of the Rathaus would be ideal, but I also know that it might be difficult, and this is acceptable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Per Ikan Kekek --PJDespa 16:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I personally would have liked more space at the bottom as well, but it's almost impossible to have such a straight perspective while having more room for the Marienplatz. My other image from this perspective depicts this rather well. --Pro2 09:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support and Pro2 have a good point.--ArildV 21:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PJDespa 16:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Mt_Manaslu.jpg[edit]

Mt Manaslu.jpg

  • Nomination Close view of Mt. Manaslu (8,156m). By User:Pratapgrg --Biplab Anand 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Posterized sky. -- Ikan Kekek 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Ikan. It's clear as day.--Peulle 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin 13:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Gorgeous landscape, but minimum file size not reached, --Fischer.H 14:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 13:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Hellebore_in_NYBG_(70027).jpg[edit]

Hellebore in NYBG (70027).jpg

  • Nomination Helleborus at the New York Botanical Garden. --Rhododendrites 18:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Not a QI as it lacks the species --Poco a poco 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Switched to discuss per Poco a poco's talk page. My understanding was that the standard for QI was to be identified to the genus level, as the species can be much more difficult to determine, and in some cases involves some guesswork. Obviously it would be ideal to have the species, and someone on Reddit took a shot at identifying it, but I'd prefer to be certain. Moving to discuss to see whether there is a consensus on genus vs. species requirements. Rhododendrites 20:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Hmmm... difficult. Some species of plants can be very difficult to identify (for instance there are more than 150 species of Taraxacum in Norway alone), so plants may be an area where there are more exceptions to the rule. However, since this is a botanical garden, are there not some kind of posters or experts nearby to explain what the various plants are? --Peulle 07:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • NYBG is a vast space, without a lot of staff roaming around, unfortunately. Most things are nicely labeled, but other times (like this), things are kind of sprinkled over a large area. The NYBG website does say that Helleborus are in the area of the garden I took this picture, but doesn't give any species. I have in the past emailed and/or tweeted them to ask for help with an identification, but never receive a response. My best luck has been with Reddit's whatisthatplant subreddit. See this thread. Someone offered a likely species, but the Wikipedian in my wants a bit more certainty before categorizing as such (the person said likely Helleborus x hybridus, but others look plausible, too, like Helleborus orientalis and Helleborus purpurascens). Rhododendrites 17:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support The species is not a criteria for a QI, but it is for a VI (as a scope is necessary). The category 'unidentified helleborus' is the suitable one. For me, it is a QI. --PJDespa 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well, that it is a prerequisite for VI is clear, but that doesn't mean that it isn't for QI. QI expects a proper description and categorization and that's without the species imposible IMHO --Poco a poco 20:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --PJDespa 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

File:IMG_Copper_Headed_Trinket_Snake.jpg[edit]

IMG Copper Headed Trinket Snake.jpg

  • Nomination Coelognathus radiatus in threat display. By User:Lurey Rohit --Biplab Anand 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small and JPEG artifacts. --XRay 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Sorry, forgotten: And I'm wondering about the EXIF data. Is the image really taken with a Canon EOS 6D? IMO the model name should be written with a capital "D". It looks the model name was added with a tool like exiftool. And please upload a not downscaled version of the photograph. --XRay 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - Out of respect for XRay's questions, I will hold off from voting and wait. But that said, isn't the size big enough for wildlife photography? The snake is pretty big in the picture. And I agree with Frank that it's good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would withdraw my contra vote. DoF isn't a major issue. These are IMO all minor issues: JPEG artifacts, crop, EXIF data, a little bit too dark. But IMO too much issues. --XRay 08:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per XRay.--Peulle 11:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment IMG sanke.jpg The photographer uploaded similar file yesterday. Please take a look. Thanks --Biplab Anand 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The user uploaded files with three different cameras (EOS 6D, 700D and 1200D or without camera), no lens information, nearly all in portrait format, nice exposure times like 1/909 s, photographer and uploader aren't identical. It is not a problem, if the photographs are taken with a smartphone, but the EXIF data should be correct. --XRay 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, BTW how is the new one?--Biplab Anand 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The new one is a new image and not a candidate, sorry. If the image is the same, please overwrite the old one. (There is a link on the file description page.) You do not need a new name, new file for improvements. The main issues are the JPEG artifacts and IMO a touch of blue. The touch of blue is a minor problem, but it can easily fixed. The JPEG artifacts may be a major problem, if you haven't the RAW file. --XRay 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@XRay: Would like to request you to check once the image now.-Biplab Anand 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per XRay and overprocessed --Llez 20:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8798.jpg[edit]

15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S 8798.jpg

  • Nomination Pushback Traktor am Flughafen Paris Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I oversaw those reflections and agree that it isn't a QI like this --Poco a poco 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Disturbing reflections. --Ermell 06:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose insufficient quality, --Fischer.H 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8863.jpg[edit]

15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S 8863.jpg

  • Nomination Beladung eines A 380 am Flughafen Paris Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Disturbing reflections. Looks as if the picture is leaning to the left. --Ermell 06:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 15:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 22:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint_Micheal_Church_of_Decazeville_05.jpg[edit]

Saint Micheal Church of Decazeville 05.jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Micheal Church of Decazeville, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I disagree, too dark --Jacek Halicki 15:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg  Support Now is OK.--Jacek Halicki 15:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Poco - for 12:59, the sky really does look too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Jacek Halicki --Rbrechko 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg  Support Now it looks better. --Rbrechko 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)~
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment ✓  New version uploaded. Tournasol7 12:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Ok now. --Milseburg 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Black_squirrel_carrying_a_walnut_in_its_mouth,_close_view.jpg[edit]

Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg

  • Nomination A melanistic Eastern gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis, carrying a nut in its mouth as it pauses while crossing a walkway in front of a house in Campbell, California. --Grendelkhan 21:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support That's quite a closeup! That's a walnut, wouldn't you say? I think it is and should be identified as such. But that's a minor point. -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Thanks! I've filed a rename request and identified the nut in the description. Grendelkhan 01:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor level of detail in the fur; let's settle it democratically and see what the community says.--Peulle 11:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I think it's good enough. -- Suisant7 17:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Suisant7 17:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 19 May → Sun 27 May
Sun 20 May → Mon 28 May
Mon 21 May → Tue 29 May
Tue 22 May → Wed 30 May
Wed 23 May → Thu 31 May
Thu 24 May → Fri 01 Jun
Fri 25 May → Sat 02 Jun
Sat 26 May → Sun 03 Jun
Sun 27 May → Mon 04 Jun