Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
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.

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 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.

  • 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 08 2020 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]] 00:57, 8 July 2020 (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

July 7, 2020[edit]

July 6, 2020[edit]

July 5, 2020[edit]

July 4, 2020[edit]

July 3, 2020[edit]

July 2, 2020[edit]

July 1, 2020[edit]

June 30, 2020[edit]

June 29, 2020[edit]

June 28, 2020[edit]

June 27, 2020[edit]

June 26, 2020[edit]

June 24, 2020[edit]

June 23, 2020[edit]

June 22, 2020[edit]

June 19, 2020[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:War_cemetery_for_World_war_II_on_the_cemetery_Rodaun_in_Vienna,_Austria-full_lower_centered-wide_PNr°0622.jpg[edit]

War cemetery for World war II on the cemetery Rodaun in Vienna, Austria-full lower centered-wide PNr°0622.jpg

  • Nomination The cemetry for the fallen russian soldiers of the second world war on the cemetery Rodaun in Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, lacks detail --MB-one 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @MB-one: What lack of detail? This image was takwn with an ultra wide angle lens at 10mm. The image width is 3805 pixel which is almost the maximum of the camera of 3888 (loss is centering and rotation crop) --D-Kuru 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp enough. --XRay 05:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The sharpness is actually only mediocre, but if one considers the resolution, just acceptable. Apparently, the used lens does not perform any better, as the settings according to Exif do not show any mistakes that the photographer would have made. Question to the photographer: What software do you use for raw development? I see strange color patterns on small details in many places, which indicate problems with demosaicing (this observation is not included in my evaluation, because that would be pixelpeeping) --Smial 09:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Tamborín_narizón_(Canthigaster_rostrata),_Madeira,_Portugal,_2019-05-31,_DD_37.jpg[edit]

Tamborín narizón (Canthigaster rostrata), Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-31, DD 37.jpg

  • Nomination Caribbean sharp-nose puffer (Canthigaster rostrata), Madeira, Portugal --Poco a poco 05:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I understand the difficulty of underwater shots, but I think that this is a bit too unclear for QI. Feel free to go to CR if you think I'm wrong. --Mdaniels5757 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No more than 12 cm long. I think it's worth a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Good lighting, and composition, but lacks sharpness and has too much noise regarding the rather low resolution. --Smial 10:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Pontiac_Performance_Racing_Team.jpg[edit]

Pontiac Performance Racing Team.jpg

  • Nomination The Pontiac Performance Racing Team is a fielded racing team competing in the upcoming ACAR Automovilisimo Series. Shoot at Independence Square, Accra, Ghana. This is an image with the theme "Africa on the Move or Transport". By User:Jeff Unoda --Kritzolina 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mdaniels5757 17:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF a bit narrow for QI imho --Sandro Halank 19:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm OK with the composition, but there's magenta CA on various edges. -- Ikan Kekek 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support slight overexposure resp. somewhat too high contrast, but regarding the very difficult lighting situation still acceptable. Just like the overexposed parts of the image, the small amounts of CA are located in irrelevant areas. Excellent use of low DOF. --Smial 10:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Baustelle_Holzbau_GSK_Hof_20200704_DSC2622.jpg[edit]

Baustelle Holzbau GSK Hof 20200704 DSC2622.jpg

  • Nomination A construction site near an elementary school. --PantheraLeo1359531 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose postprocessing has gone too far, leaves are posterized and some of them have lost the green color. It should be not to hard to fix it. --EV Raudtee 14:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, it's common for patches of leaves to be like that. --Mdaniels5757 03:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. f/22 is not a good choice, because of the diffraction the sharpness is not optimal. With modern digital cameras with high-resolution sensors, you should not stop down below f/11 when taking pictures of landscapes and similar subjects, if possible. Another weak point is the boring lighting (sun at your back...). Nevertheless I consider the picture to be sufficient in terms of our quality criteria.--Smial 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not optimal conditions (see Smial), but the lamp on the left side bother me a lot, imho no QI --Sandro Halank 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sandro Halank 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Achillea_millefolium_Lusatian_Mountains.jpg[edit]

Achillea millefolium Lusatian Mountains.jpg

  • Nomination File:Achillea millefolium bloom. By User:Mirek256 --Mirek256 10:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient sharpness. --EV Raudtee 14:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. --Mdaniels5757 03:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Exposure on the high side, therefore few details on the bright petals. Probably fixable by new development from Raw file. Mediocrate sharpness, but "good enough" due to high reslution. Btw: Why landscape format with a really typical portrait motif? -- Smial 11:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mdaniels5757 17:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Сказочный_Абалак.jpg[edit]

Сказочный Абалак.jpg

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This girl is inappropriate, sorry. Bff 21:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bff, when I read your review using the word "inappropriate", I thought this might be a porno picture, but of course it is nothing of the kind. I think that what you mean is that because this photo is a snap of a person in front of a motif, that's a subject that doesn't get selected as a Quality Image, and you could also explain why if you wanted to. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The girl is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 10:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this is worthy of discussion. --Mdaniels5757 18:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, burnt highlights resp. colour clipping. Why should an image with a person in the foreground not be useful? --Smial 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Multiple technical issues.--Peulle 18:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting motif, but everything is slanted down to the left. -- Ikan Kekek 18:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Радостный_Абалак.jpg[edit]

Радостный Абалак.jpg

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This girl is inappropriate, sorry. She is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is worthy of discussion. --Mdaniels5757 18:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have no problem with the person here, but there are chromatic aberrations, the perspective is warped, the shadows and highlights need work and the top crop is cutting off part of the building.--Peulle 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. --Smial 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Пахарь.jpg[edit]

Пахарь.jpg

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The girl is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 11:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe girl does not enhance the photo and obscures part of the main element of the photo Lorax 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This kind of portrait is a cliche, but this one is cute and pretty well done. I think it's a QI. Also, Commons is not an encyclopedia but a Wikimedia-wide repository of images. If some of them are non-encyclopedic but good examples of this kind of portrait, where's the harm? -- Ikan Kekek 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image with a pretty girl and good quality. No valued image for the encyclopedia of course. -- Spurzem 19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Smial 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose preliminary. Image is good but categories are insufficient. --MB-one 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Milpiés_(Cylindroiulus_caeruleocinctus),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_295-320_FS.jpg[edit]

Milpiés (Cylindroiulus caeruleocinctus), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 295-320 FS.jpg

  • Nomination Millipede (Cylindroiulus caeruleocinctus), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • specimen? --Charlesjsharp 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it make a difference for QI? --Poco a poco 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EV Raudtee 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent Blood Red Sandman 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dead or alive, that's really impressive. However, I do agree that if this is a specimen, it should be so described, and accuracy of description is to my understanding something that is asked for of QIs, so please clarify this in your description whenever it's relevant. Thanks a lot. -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abeja_(Colletes_daviesanus),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-27,_DD_104-111_FS.jpg[edit]

Abeja (Colletes daviesanus), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-27, DD 104-111 FS.jpg

  • Nomination Mouth of a bee (Colletes daviesanus), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Blood Red Sandman 17:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • specimen? --Charlesjsharp 18:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not relevant for QI --Poco a poco 09:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient sharpness --EV Raudtee 14:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is quite sufficient, considering the size of a bee's mouth! Looks great at full screen on my 19-inch monitor. But as I said before, providing information is always relevant. -- Ikan Kekek 23:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Mdaniels5757 19:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mdaniels5757 19:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Escarabajo_(Chrysolina_sturmi),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_574-602_FS.jpg[edit]

Escarabajo (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 574-602 FS.jpg

  • Nomination Bettle (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • should mention specimen --Charlesjsharp 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not relevant for QI --Poco a poco 09:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I agree again with Charles' point. -- Ikan Kekek 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Severo-Priladozhsky_reserve._Ruskeala_waterfall_and_water_flows_of_the_Tohmajoki_river.jpg[edit]

Severo-Priladozhsky reserve. Ruskeala waterfall and water flows of the Tohmajoki river.jpg

  • Nomination Category "Specially protected natural territories of Russia". Severo-Priladozhsky reserve. Ruskeala waterfall and water flows of the Tohmajoki river. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Александр Байдуков 07:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MB-one 05:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --A.Savin 12:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose per Savin --EV Raudtee 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 01:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Тень_горы_Бештау_на_облаках_и_ее_Брокенский_призрак.jpg[edit]

Тень горы Бештау на облаках и ее Брокенский призрак.jpg

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Ganzikov 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Oversaturared. Could do with a bit more sharpness. --Ermell 13:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree, but with everything else I think it's still a QI IMO. --Mdaniels5757 20:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. --Ermell 05:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus too much to the foreground a higher f-value would havbe been better --Michielverbeek 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid QI to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose nice place, but per Ermell. --EV Raudtee 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground is too lost in shadow, with the warmth of the low sun only enriching small patches in the distance. The big patches of relative darkness are too distracting. --Bobulous 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I spent a while looking at it again today, and the mix of tones seemed balanced this time. So I'm reversing my previous vote. Sharpness seems fine, near and far, and sky saturation looks fine to me (resembles the sort of blend you get with a polarizer). --Bobulous (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 07:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2018_24.jpg[edit]

Krakow 2018 24.jpg

  • Nomination Sculptures on Tower of Kraków City Hall (Magistrate's Building) in Poselska street, Kraków --Scotch Mist 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Buidhe 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Buidhe: IMHO 'perspective correction' would be too severe here and would make the Tower look "weird" so have put this up for discussion and the opinions of others (it may on occasion be helpful to comment before declining a nomination) --Scotch Mist 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not a fan of the angle here. --Mdaniels5757 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mdaniels5757 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Jagiellonian_University_25.jpg[edit]

Jagiellonian University 25.jpg

  • Nomination 'King Casimir Plaque' at Novus College at the Jagiellonian University --Scotch Mist 13:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting reflection that detracts from the quality of the image. --Buidhe 13:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Buidhe: Fixed - reflection removed although IMHO this did not distract from the sculptural reliefs on the plaque, nor the text. --Scotch Mist 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. Good quality. --S.Hinakawa 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak -- Spurzem 11:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks like fairly destructive methods have been used to squash the reflections (flicking between the before and after images, a large number of pixels have been pushed from left to right to hide reflections, and the position of the number '4' in the year has changed slightly as a result). Ideally a polarizing filter would be used on the lens while taking the shot to dim reflections, as it's not really possible to restore the lost information in post-processing. Please add a template to the image details page to say that digital manipulations have been applied. --Bobulous 14:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your comment - you are correct - should have remembered to do this but 'retouching an image' is not something I do very often! --Scotch Mist 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Nelkenwurz_(Geum_urbanum)-20200523-RM-085754.jpg[edit]

Nelkenwurz (Geum urbanum)-20200523-RM-085754.jpg

  • Nomination Close-up of a buttercup flower after the petals have fallen off in the Bamberg Hain. Focus stack of 14 frames --Ermell 06:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Looks overprocessed to me, and there are a bunch of overexposed areas --Poco a poco 07:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Misidentified plant. This is the infruitescence of some kind of Geum. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Judging from the date late in May and the confusion with Ranunculus acris this is very likely Geum urbanum (with yellow petals). Please recategorize, rename and change the description and the structured data accordingly. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not convinced yet, sorry, Reinhold, it still looks overprocessed to me (too much sharpening or/and contrast) --Poco a poco 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see a vertical stitching error in the dark green bokeh to the left of the upper stamens (or whatever), about 3/4 of the way to the left margin. Otherwise good. -- Ikan Kekek 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint.--Ermell 20:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure thing. Seems like good quality to me. For those who think the appearance is wrong, you should oppose. I don't know this plant, so if anything's off about it, I couldn't tell. The results I found in an image search were in other colors or shades, but this appearance certainly looks plausible to this non-expert. -- Ikan Kekek 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A little bit overprocessed, sorry. Stranges pixels... I Want more votes. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A fascinating image, but I have to agree that (unlike your other focus stacking macro photos, Ermell, which are all very realistic) it looks a bit overprocessed – less sharpening, contrast, clarity etc. could be better. I have taken the time to look at some specimens of this plant in my garden, and IMHO the colours should be a bit more subdued, less vidid. No offence, --Aristeas 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It does seem over-saturated or something. Mind you, the QI hurdle is pretty low. Charlesjsharp 15:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just don't feel confident in supporting. I'll await your reply to these remarks, Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Poco a poco Sebring12Hrs Charlesjsharp Ikan Kekek Aristeas I find it interesting that some of you think that something is wrong but it is not exactly clear what. In this picture only the contrast was raised a bit and Topaz denoising was applied. Maybe it is because the plant is wet from the rain. The burned highlights that Diego complained about disturbed me and I tried to get rid of them. Thanks for all your reviews.--Ermell 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong; I just haven't seen this plant in real life. I'm happy to take your word for the colors being accurate and will reinstate my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Ermell, this is a great shot, but IMO, there are pixelated parts, we can see too much squares. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excessive oversharpening. --Smial 13:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversharpened. --EV Raudtee 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Trapezonotus_arenarius_auf_Wolfsmilch.jpg[edit]

Trapezonotus arenarius auf Wolfsmilch.jpg

  • Nomination Mutmaßlich Trapezonotus arenarius (auf Deutsch Sand-Bodenwanze oder Ackertrapp) auf Wolfsmilch, aufgenommen bei Dahn (Biosphärenreservat Pfälzerwald / Nordvogesen) Das Bild wurde durch "focus stacking" aus zwei Einzelbildern zusammengesetzt und ist aus diesem Grund digital bearbeitet worden. --Ssprmannheim 10:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus stacked, yet nothing is in focus plus a bunch of little spots (dust, water?). -- Ikan Kekek 00:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree re the focus. Just remove the spots and I think it'd be a QI. --Mdaniels5757 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Charlesjsharp 19:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed the dust spots. Some of the areas seem like out of focus, thats because i used a lens from 1970. I could have uploaded a smaller, sharper version. --Ssprmannheim
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How big is the insect? Uploading a smaller version is not the way to do it. It's possible I'm getting spoiled by the incredible focus stacks of insects by people like Ermell and Poco a poco, but I was surprised not to see sharper focus stacking. The body of the insect looks pretty clear if I don't enlarge too far past the size of my laptop screen, but the legs are mostly out of focus, as is the underside. -- Ikan Kekek 08:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The thing is about 5mm long. Im just starting with doing focus stacks and im not very experienced yet. Also this picture was taken handheld and i have not so many shots to stack.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality considering the size of the insect. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks QI to me now. --Mdaniels5757 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy, but QI for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --EV Raudtee 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Mosca_común_(Musca_domestica),_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-24,_DD_61-75_FS.jpg[edit]

Mosca común (Musca domestica), Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-24, DD 61-75 FS.jpg

  • Nomination Housefly (Musca domestica), Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 11:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 11:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most hairs surrounded by a blurry area and also many hairs not sharp --Llez 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I accept the arguments of the other voters --Llez 10:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Short DoF by design and IMO amazing for what it is. -- Ikan Kekek 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Mdaniels5757 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tight 'crop' but some great detail. --Scotch Mist 15:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All in all, images like these are gold for biology books. This overview of the fly AND the detail of the facette eye in one image - I love it --PantheraLeo1359531 16:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this is dead Poco a poco, the description should say so, then we might judge it differently. Charlesjsharp 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GRDN711 20:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Light_Pink_Garden_Rose_by_A_-_2020-06-18.jpg[edit]

Light Pink Garden Rose by A - 2020-06-18.jpg

  • Nomination Light pink garden rose --A 23:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blury for me. --Hwwo 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. The background isn't in focus, but it doesn't need to be -- the subject is. --Mdaniels5757 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support it if the flower was identified. --Palauenc05 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a standard practice to have the b/g defocussed. The bloom is fine, which is what counts. Rodhullandemu 13:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For now, proper description is missing. --Palauenc05 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --EV Raudtee 14:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now per Palauenc05. The Vietnamese text Google translates to "A pale rose bud", and no specific category of roses is given. Please correct me if I'm operating on a misimpression, but I believe that the variety of rose is expected in the description and category for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 01:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now per Ikan Kekek --Sandro Halank 19:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Identifying the species would be desirable, but "rose" is specific enough to warrant QI IMO. --MB-one 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MB-one Blood Red Sandman 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Blood Red Sandman 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Сад-сиренгарий_на_Щелковском_шоссе_9.jpg[edit]

Сад-сиренгарий на Щелковском шоссе 9.jpg

  • Nomination Сад-сиренгарий на Щелковском шоссе --Ulaisaeva 11:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Please, identify the species --Poco a poco 12:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: per category, species is Syringa vulgaris. --Mdaniels5757 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thank you, but the background is too bright, not a QI to me like this --Poco a poco 09:13, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough IMO.--Ermell 06:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. --A.Savin 12:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco --EV Raudtee 14:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Mdaniels5757 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Лебедь_на_пруду.jpg[edit]

Лебедь на пруду.jpg

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Александр Байдуков 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Proper image description needed --MB-one 12:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Blood Red Sandman 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Description is still not o.k. --Ermell 12:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please identify the species of the waterfowl (some kind of swan, I imagine) and include that in your file description and categories. -- Ikan Kekek 08:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MB-one and Ermell, swan is insufficiently identified to be useful in Commons. If that could be cleaned up, this image might be OK. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yep. Categories for "waterfowl" and "cygnus" are not only insufficient but COM:OVERCAT. -- Ikan Kekek 18:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mdaniels5757 22:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 30 Jun → Wed 08 Jul
Wed 01 Jul → Thu 09 Jul
Thu 02 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
Fri 03 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
Sat 04 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Tue 07 Jul → Wed 15 Jul
Wed 08 Jul → Thu 16 Jul