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 • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
Quality images logo.svg

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]

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 June 2021.
  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 June 2021.
  • 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 June 19 2021 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]] 07:43, 19 June 2021 (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


June 19, 2021[edit]

June 18, 2021[edit]

June 17, 2021[edit]

June 16, 2021[edit]

June 15, 2021[edit]

June 14, 2021[edit]

June 13, 2021[edit]

June 12, 2021[edit]

June 11, 2021[edit]

June 10, 2021[edit]

June 09, 2021[edit]

June 08, 2021[edit]

June 04, 2021[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:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(217).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (217).jpg

  • Nomination Şener Özbayraklı behind the manager of Turkey national football teamFatih Terim. --Steindy 16:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion I've looked at this twice now and while there's no technical quality issue, I'm really finding the background disturbing. The manager standing directly behind the player like this definitely detracts attention from the subject. --Peulle 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, please discuss. I find just the manager in the background with the instruction to the player interesting. --Steindy 23:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Área_de_Proteção_Ambiental_Quilombos_do_Médio_Ribeira_Thomas-Fuhrmann_(08).jpg[edit]

Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (08).jpg

  • Nomination Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira de nível Estadual, localizado (a) em Barra do Turvo (SP), Eldorado (SP), Iporanga (SP) - festive coquette, male and female - (Lophornis chalybeus) By User:Snowmanstudios --Rodrigo.Argenton 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uncalibrated color space (sRGB recommended) --F. Riedelio 07:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good photo (there are almost no QIs of hummingbirds), but not enough for QI imo. --Nefronus 19:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The uncalibrated color space was a hint and not a review. --F. Riedelio 07:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Did you mean to support Nefronus? There are dozens of hummingbird QIs and several FPs. Charlesjsharp 21:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did not reject the photo because the nominator can still add the color space. --F. Riedelio 10:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm neutral about the sharpness but the background noise should be removed --Trougnouf 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Charlesjsharp thank you for the note, that was my mistake. I did not mean to support, I corrected that. Nefronus 07:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(287).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (287).jpg

  • Nomination Arda Turan, footballplyer of Turkey. --Steindy 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment too similar to the other one --Charlesjsharp 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree. There is no point to this process if you can just flood it with multiple similar images, and some self-restraint is better than pissing off reviewers with repetition. Rodhullandemu 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Do you folks want to link the other photo, which I haven't seen? -- Ikan Kekek 05:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hahaha, I'm also against pissing off reviewers with similar images, but that is not a formal reason for opposing --Moroder 10:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. A better response to many similar photos appearing might be to leave them unreviewed. It's not a quality issue.--Peulle 19:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Cygne_tuberculé_juvénile_(Cygnus_olor)_(27).jpg[edit]

Cygne tuberculé juvénile (Cygnus olor) (27).jpg

  • Nomination Juvenile mute swan (Cygnus olor) in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 09:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose one bird facing away --Charlesjsharp 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photograph. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Per Charlesjsparp + there should be more space on the right with the bird heading there (not well composed)… Nefronus 06:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(266).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (266).jpg

  • Nomination Cenk Tosun, footballplayer of Turkey. --Steindy 20:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looking down --Charlesjsharp 21:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • He is looking to the ball. So what? Let's see other votes. --Steindy 22:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah, I think that's fine, he's in the middle of performing an action.--Peulle 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Good, but imho there could be a little less space on the right & little more on the top to balance the composition. Nefronus 06:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:SDC_on_Blocks.jpg[edit]

SDC on Blocks.jpg

  • Nomination Tugboat Samuel de Champlain on blocks in drydock. (By GuavaTrain) --GuavaTrain 17:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tagooty 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bottom crop --Charlesjsharp 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks alright to me, but please fix the COM:OVERCAT. -- Ikan Kekek 05:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop, dark, low contrast. Glrx 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Per Glrx. Nefronus 06:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Nefronus 06:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:E351系_s22編成.jpg[edit]

E351系 s22編成.jpg

  • Nomination A JR East E351 running on Super Azusa service (by Haswell2011) --廣九直通車 10:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, wrong perspective of a train. --Steindy 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The train is clearly banking while traversing a tight curve. Good enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Trains are usually recorded in such a way that the hole train can be seen. A position on the inside of the curve would be the right choice here. For example, see User:Kabelleger. A sharp photo allone is not enough! --Steindy 14:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find railway companies are extremely sensitive about where they will allow people, so it's possible that a view on the inside of the curve is not available. Rodhullandemu 15:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don’t see what is wrong --Moroder 10:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Assuming that the posts of the overhead electric line are vertical, the photo needs a slight perspective correction. There also seems to me to be a slight barrel distortion, but whether a correction is necessary, you can probably only see when you have made the perpendiculars vertical. In every other respect, I think the photo is good enough for QI. --Smial 14:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is off, just front face and tail of train shows, and mountain aligns with top of train face. Glrx 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Glrx. Nefronus 06:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Nefronus 06:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Studenka-0015.jpg[edit]

Studenka-0015.jpg

  • Nomination Forest near the Studenka river, Russia. --Alexander Novikov 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, oversharpened, the detail looks like a painting… --Nefronus 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpness corrected. Alexander Novikov 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This version is good quality, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan --Moroder 11:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Busy image lacks theme. Glrx 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Studenka-0016.jpg[edit]

Studenka-0016.jpg

  • Nomination Fallen trees near the Studenka river, Russia. --Alexander Novikov 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, oversharpened. --Nefronus 22:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is nothing oversharpend. Good quality. --Steindy 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The background looks strange and probably oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version uploaded, sharpness reduced. Alexander Novikov 08:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks certainly better, so I change my vote. Nefronus 13:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed, much better. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Heart_Shaped_Strawberry.jpg[edit]

Heart Shaped Strawberry.jpg

  • Nomination A small deformed fruit --Angry Red Hammer Guy 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small & not very good detail, sorry. --Nefronus 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I desagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution only reaches the absolute minimum requirement of QIC. That is clearly too little for such a motif. I would expect at least six MPixels. --Smial 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Ps: I find the composition with the non-standard hard lighting and the cast shadows very appealing in this case and I would like to support the photo. But 2 Mpoixels is really too little. --Smial 15:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with regret, but I don't find the composition engaging, particularly the shadow at top left- those familiar with the works of Giorgio de Chirico will understand the significance of strange shadows, but for me it doesn't work here. And the size could have been larger. Rodhullandemu 07:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_temple_in_the_garden_of_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpg[edit]

Small temple in the garden of Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii).jpg

  • Nomination Small temple in the garden of Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 07:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very good light imo, the object appears shadowy/dull, sorry. --Nefronus 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality IMO. --F. Riedelio 08:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Achleiten_bei_Limbach_01_-_DJI_0067.jpg[edit]

Schloss Achleiten bei Limbach 01 - DJI 0067.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Achleiten in Limbach --Hans Koberger 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good for a drone image, but not enough for QI for me, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enought for me --Commonists 16:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft for me.--Peulle 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • sharpened - hope it's better now --Hans Koberger 16:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Coual be a little bit sharper, but almosz good enough for QI. --Steindy 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bodegraven_,_de_Sint_Galluskerk_RM9751_vanaf_de_Oude_Rijn_IMG_9246_2021-05-30_18.21.jpg[edit]

Bodegraven , de Sint Galluskerk RM9751 vanaf de Oude Rijn IMG 9246 2021-05-30 18.21.jpg

  • Nomination Bodegraven-NL , church (Sint Galluskerk) from the Oude Rijn --Michielverbeek 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the detail is quite misty + it would be better with more space on the top. --Nefronus 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me --Commonists 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • At this moment I am very busy with making new photos so I hope to find some time this evening --Michielverbeek 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry I cannot enter my version before the crop --Michielverbeek 20:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI --Moroder 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Steindy 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 06:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Oak_avenue,_Dänschenburg.jpg[edit]

Oak avenue, Dänschenburg.jpg

  • Nomination L 191 state road lined with oak trees (Dänschenburg, Germany). -- Radomianin 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low dynamic range, sorry. There are almost black/white parts. → Support. --Nefronus 23:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. Unfortunately, a wider dynamic range is difficult to get for this type of handheld shot with this SLR. In my opinion, the dynamic range is good enough under these lighting conditions. --Radomianin 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some very small burnt details. Some very small dark areas without detail. Both are completely normal with this lighting and not at all annoying. All relevant parts of the picture are well exposed and the overall picture impression looks very natural and balanced. --Smial 14:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This was difficult to decide (have looked 3 times or so at it) ;–). Subject and composition are very good, this would be a great photo if the dynamic range was better. But as Smial has explained very well, the exposure is correct and the defects are minor, so QI. --Aristeas 08:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To @Nefronus:. Welcome to QIC, but please read this --Moroder 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have been there for a while (a few months) and I even read the linked discussion. I reviewed many unreviewed pictures in good faith that day. Yes, 2–3 reviews might have been too strict (and subsequently got corrected in the discussion), but I think the vast majority has been fair/objective. Nefronus 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded Thanks a lot for your reviews :) @Nefronus:, @Smial:, @Aristeas: and @Moroder: I have uploaded a new version despite your support: To get a little more balance, I have reduced the shadows of the darkest parts a bit. Many regards to you -- Radomianin (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Nefronus 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Crested_caracara_perched_on_a_cactus.jpg[edit]

Crested caracara perched on a cactus.jpg

  • Nomination Southern caracara on Bonaire, BES Islands. By User:Atsme --Tomer T 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Commonists 17:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite good, but imo on the lower side of resolution and detail. Look at the back of the head and the wing feathers. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Appears a bit overprocessed, but it is good enough for QI. --Smial 09:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Erdbeeren_IMG_9997.jpg[edit]

Erdbeeren IMG 9997.jpg

  • Nomination Erdbeeren zum selbstpflücken in der Vorderpfalz, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Commonists 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The achenes on the nearest strawberries are blurred. --Nefronus 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_garden_in_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpg[edit]

Small garden in Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii).jpg

  • Nomination small garden in Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tilted. --Remontees 22:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. --XRay 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor sharpness at edges, especially the lower one, and clearly a compositional disproportion with too much of the ground and too few of the building. --A.Savin 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is a bit overexposed, in the sunlit part of the scene the colors of the flowers and greenery are eroded. However, in a photo of a garden, I don't think it's crucial for QIC that surrounding buildings are fully shown. I think the composition is actually quite okay. --Smial 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • White balance looks off to me now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Better. Change vote to Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Smial 15:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The wall on the left looks strangely purple to me, and the light seems unnaturally dulled. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The version of 16:55, 7. Jun. 2021 was better. The colour adjustment was way too strong. -- Smial 09:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Better, but that wall still looks a bit odd to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The composition and the subject are nice, yet 1) there are some overexposed parts on the irises on the left side, 2) the detail looks somewhat crude, see e.g. the left wine plant. Nefronus 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed in the sunlit part, sharpness on some of the leaves etc inadequate. --Tagooty 16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Fri 11 Jun → Sat 19 Jun
  • Sat 12 Jun → Sun 20 Jun
  • Sun 13 Jun → Mon 21 Jun
  • Mon 14 Jun → Tue 22 Jun
  • Tue 15 Jun → Wed 23 Jun
  • Wed 16 Jun → Thu 24 Jun
  • Thu 17 Jun → Fri 25 Jun
  • Fri 18 Jun → Sat 26 Jun
  • Sat 19 Jun → Sun 27 Jun