Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 12 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 05:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 11, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 08, 2024

[edit]

July 07, 2024

[edit]

July 06, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

July 04, 2024

[edit]

July 03, 2024

[edit]

July 02, 2024

[edit]

July 01, 2024

[edit]

June 29, 2024

[edit]

June 24, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Dünen_und_Salzwiesen_(Ostheller_Norderney).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ostheller Norderney. By User:Stephan Sprinz --Augustgeyler 08:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Tilted cw. --Milseburg 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, otherwise FP potential. --Sebring12Hrs 05:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Enseigne_de_magasin_(Turckheim).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shop sign in Turckheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    * Oppose. Very poor lighting. Is it still really a QI? Please discuss -- Spurzem 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    * Oppose. Maybe I don't understand enough about art, maybe even nothing at all. But I would like to ask you to discuss whether this photo based on a tree trunk is a quality image. -- Spurzem 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand too. --Sebring12Hrs 05:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Alter_Zerbener_Kiessee_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Quarry lake in winter --Georgfotoart 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Stitching errors to fix. Rather low image height. --Milseburg 15:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done newly compiled --Georgfotoart 21:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Peloton_of_Tour_Féminin_International_des_Pyrénées_2024_during_stage_2.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Peloton of Tour Féminin International des Pyrénées 2024 during stage 2 --Shougissime 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 16:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose crop at bottom --Charlesjsharp 08:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The aim is to show the heart of the peloton and imagine the continuity of this one at the bottom and at the top of the picture. The main subject is the girls who are smilling and the yellow jersey who is the leader of the race. --Shougissime 20:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support. Very good image: good composition, good colors and good sharpness. Nice to see the girls smiling. -- Spurzem 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Very good technical quality, minor composition flaw, aka: good enough. --Smial 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Technically good. But the crop at the bottom is not good. The fact that there is one leading cyclist gives some importance to this person. This makes it hard to accept the cut off there. --Augustgeyler 18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per others, the crop. --Sebring12Hrs 20:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment. When I look at the arguments for contra, I can only shake my head. Just look at everything else you are praising. -- Spurzem 21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Indeed the bottom crop is flaw, but still it is good enough IMO. --Plozessor 04:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Buger_Brücke_Hochwasser-20110109-RM-145505.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Buger Bridge at high water --Ermell 04:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Level of detail is borderline here. --Augustgeyler 12:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think it is too soft. There is not much detail at the trees. --Augustgeyler 19:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, but the main motive is probably the flood --Georgfotoart 11:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support This is soft by soft lighting. And that is unavoidable in such Schietwetter. You can't wait until the sun shines and creates beautiful contrasts, which then look sharper. By then, the flood may have already disappeared. --Smial 12:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Ps: However, a more detailed description of the picture would be useful, e.g. the name of the river and which bank is shown.
    •  Support Per Smial. --Plozessor 04:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

    [edit]

    • Nomination Ochre-striped cardinalfish (Ostorhinchus compressus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose I think it lacks sharpness, it's a bit noisy. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I indeed believe that there is enough level of detail here for an underwater QI. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Indeed good enough for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Hauptplatz_27_in_Enns_(1).jpg

    [edit]

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

    File:Tholpava_koothu_shadow_puppet_artist_(1).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Tholpava koothu shadow puppet artistsI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 17:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Focus is not on the face and it is blurred too much. --Augustgeyler 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 07:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 07:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:BMW_M3,_BAS_24,_Brussels_(P1170529-RR).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination BMW M3 at Brussels Auto Show 2024 --MB-one 08:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose The right yellow car merged to the other one (the subject) ruins the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree. The separation between subject an background is learly visible IMO --MB-one 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfortunately I disagree with your disagreeing, another yellow car in the background of a yellow car is disturbing. Might have been better to take the picture from a bit more right. --Plozessor 07:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose In addition to the problems already criticized by others, the wide-angle perspective also destroys the proportions of the vehicle. Maybe I'm too old-fashioned, but for me, wide-angle lenses are a tool for rather special designs, not a means of "making everything fit into the picture". (This also applies to architecture). --Smial 11:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 07:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Mechelen_OLV_over_de_Dijle_hoogaltaar_detail_3.png

    [edit]

    • Nomination Detail of the High Altar of the Church of Our Lady across the river Dijle --ReneeWrites 21:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Too soft and lacking detail. --Augustgeyler 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info Blue reflection (change image section? and sharpen) --Georgfotoart 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Djerba_harbor.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination a unique shot of the last part of Djerba harbor while sailingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 17:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose It looks nice but can not be QI. The image is  Overprocessed. Colour contrast and shadows are edited unrealistically. --Augustgeyler 19:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Especially the rocks are not looking natural. --Plozessor 09:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose  Overprocessed.--Tournasol7 19:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Temp  Support.  Question Perhaps the color saturation is a tad too high, but couldn't the green on the boulders also come from algae? The sky, clouds and water surface look natural to me. Ok, the green on the pillar is a mystery to me too. -- Smial 11:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Beautiful picture but those colors don't look natural. ReneeWrites 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:2024_Toyota_ProAce_City_IMG_9398.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Toyota ProAce City Facelift in Leonberg --Alexander-93 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality (assuming the ground is sloped). --MB-one 12:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose blown out highlights at the front of the car. --Augustgeyler 19:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Tribulus_terrestris_-_Dghoumes_National_Park.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Tribulus terrestris captured in Dghoumes National ParkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 12:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Not sharp on the sides --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support While the utmost right part of the plant looks slightly out of focus at full resolution (which is about 18 Megapixels!), the photo is really good enough IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Per Robert Flogaus-Faust ReneeWrites 22:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Acacia_-_Dghoumes_National_Park.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination an Acacia tree in Dghoumes National ParkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 12:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose A more precise location (or geocode) is needed here. Otherwise good. --Augustgeyler 19:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak (temporary)  Oppose. Nice view, but CA should be fixed, that would probably also improve the sharpness at the edges. Somewhat reddish tint. The vignetting could also be reduced a little (not necessarily completely) as I don't think it helps to improve the composition. --Smial 12:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:РАССВЕТ.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Sunrise in Ile-Alatau national park. Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. By User:RS128 --Красный 06:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment There is one dust spot next to the sun on the right --Poco a poco 07:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Marwenwafi 23:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Dust spot still there, be patient --Poco a poco 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • If I move to CR after it was supported then it has to be an  Oppose, not a comment Poco a poco 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info This should go to discussions I guess. --Plozessor 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Dust spots should be removed. Otherwise very good. --Augustgeyler 21:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The dust spots can be removed later with a little effort --Georgfotoart 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose  Not done --Milseburg 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Li_L9,_Almaty_(P1180247).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Li Auto L9 in Almaty --MB-one 22:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Красный 04:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Very unfortunate lighting. Please discuss whether it is a QI. -- Spurzem 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support IMO acceptable. --Plozessor 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose An SUV in its natural habitat: blocking the road when parking. Otherwise, I agree with Spurzem. --Smial 13:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Per Plozessor--Alexander-93 17:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Μονή_Ζωοδόχου_Πηγής_στη_Στεμνίτσα_2998.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination The monastery of Zoodochos Pigi in Stemnitsa, Arcadia. --C messier 22:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. The foreground is too dark, the facade of the building on the right is overexposed. Please discuss whether the photo is really a quality image. -- Spurzem 09:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Acceptable to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Acceptable and realistic to me. No details lost in foreground or background.--ArildV (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Not a good or bad picture. It is OK. The light does not invite the viewer into the scene. It is sharp and clear with good resolution. The composition is good. The brightened shadows now tend to reveal some noise. The wide angle perspective in combination with strong perspective correction led to an unrealistic appearance of the floor on the left. Only the perspective artefacts leading me very slightly to oppose on this nomination. But it is a borderline decision. --Augustgeyler 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Very good quality.--Tournasol7 19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support I also recognize the slight overexposure on the right, but I don't find it too disturbing in this case, especially since the colors still look realistic. --Smial 13:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 18:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

    [edit]

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

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Fern_Rock_Mallalli_Hassan_Jun24_A7CR_01573.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Small fern (2–3 in (5.1–7.6 cm)) and moss on rock, Mallalli Falls, Hassan, Karnataka, India --Tagooty 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose ID of the plants insufficient. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
      @Robert Flogaus-Faust: If anyone could help ID the fern, would be much appreciated. This is beyond my limited knowledge of ferns. --Tagooty 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
      @Tagooty: and @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Maybe it could help you...ː Lygodium --Terragio67 15:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:A_reflection_flight_of_barn_swallow.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination a reflection flight of barn swallow captured in bagmati river in kathmandy valley. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 10:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose It looks somehow  Overprocessed as if the naturally shadwed body of the bird was brightend annaturally. What do others think? --Augustgeyler 11:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral waiting for some response. I am not sure about it anymore. --August Geyler (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Not sure about brightness, but it looks retouched (something seems off with the tips of both wings). Also it is not really sharp and detailed. What exactly do you mean with "reflection flight", does the picture not show the actual bird but rather its reflection in the water or something? --Plozessor 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Perhaps I was wrong with my vote. The description says: "a reflection flight of barn swallow captured in bagmati river in kathmandy valley in nepal". If that is the case, the bright underside could be natural. It must have been a very clever setup to get the bird at this angle while having very even water below and perfect light from above. @Prasan Shrestha: @Nirmal Dulal: can you shed light on the background of this shooting? --Augustgeyler 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support You're not looking at the bird directly but a reflection in the water. It's a clever setup, and the image seems detailed enough considering the circumstances. ReneeWrites 22:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Thu 04 Jul → Fri 12 Jul
    • Fri 05 Jul → Sat 13 Jul
    • Sat 06 Jul → Sun 14 Jul
    • Sun 07 Jul → Mon 15 Jul
    • Mon 08 Jul → Tue 16 Jul
    • Tue 09 Jul → Wed 17 Jul
    • Wed 10 Jul → Thu 18 Jul
    • Thu 11 Jul → Fri 19 Jul
    • Fri 12 Jul → Sat 20 Jul