Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 July 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 July 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 July 08 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]] 05:00, 8 July 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


July 08, 2021[edit]

July 07, 2021[edit]

July 06, 2021[edit]

July 05, 2021[edit]

July 04, 2021[edit]

July 03, 2021[edit]

July 02, 2021[edit]

July 01, 2021[edit]

June 30, 2021[edit]

June 29, 2021[edit]

June 27, 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_(089).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (089).jpg

  • Nomination Alessandro Schöpf, footballplayer of Austria. --Steindy 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Other person's arm in the way. Sorry. --GuavaTrain 16:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry! I can't send the other 21 players away in a soccer match. --Steindy 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It’s natural that the situation might make taking photos difficult… and just some are the best. --Nefronus 07:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much overlapping, per others. -- Ikan Kekek 00:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(090).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (090).jpg

  • Nomination Alessandro Schöpf, footballplayer of Austria. --Steindy 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Other person's arm in the way. Sorry. --GuavaTrain 16:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry! I can't send the other 21 players away in a soccer match. --Steindy 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You can't, but not all of the resulting photos are QIs. Too much overlapping. -- Ikan Kekek 01:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:長電や_佛も笠を_めして立つ.jpg[edit]

長電や 佛も笠を めして立つ.jpg

  • Nomination A Nagaden 3500 series passing through a wooden board, featuring heavy motion blur. (by Kznrhsd) --廣九直通車 09:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 15:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks overexposed --Charlesjsharp 18:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While the bottom may be overexposed, I think the main object (the board) isn't really.廣九直通車 04:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 01:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_(Panthera_onca_palustris)_female_Piquiri_River_3.jpg[edit]

Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) female Piquiri River 3.jpg

  • Nomination Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) female --Charlesjsharp 08:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quakity--Lmbuga 11:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough. Only the nose is good. --Steindy 22:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Since it’s a photo from the wild, I am all for support. --Nefronus 08:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Nefronus --Moroder 11:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to me. The nose is sharpest, but there's enough to see here. -- Ikan Kekek 01:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_(Panthera_onca_palustris)_male_Three_Brothers_River_5.jpg[edit]

Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male Three Brothers River 5.jpg

  • Nomination Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male --Charlesjsharp 08:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quakity--Lmbuga 11:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough. --Steindy 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficiently sharp given the evening light and distance, IMO. --Tagooty 10:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others --Moroder 11:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Head is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 01:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(055).jpg[edit]

AUT vs. TUR 2016-03-29 (055).jpg

  • Nomination Rubin Okotie, footballplayer of Austria. --Steindy 11:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Little space on the right, sorry. --Nefronus 11:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think it's place enough. Please discuss. --Steindy 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight --Charlesjsharp 18:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me as an action shot. -- Ikan Kekek 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Vers_les_quais_J_et_K_à_Perrache.jpg[edit]

Vers les quais J et K à Perrache.jpg

  • Nomination Passage to platforms J and K at en:Lyon-Perrache station. --Touam 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Strange color on the shoulder of the person. Fixable? --Ermell 19:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    Done, I hope. What do you think ? Thank you for your review. --Touam 03:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shoulder looks OK to me now. The areas in partial shadow look a little green to me, but that could be accurate. I'll support, but see what you think. -- Ikan Kekek 05:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good photo for me. --Knopik-som 06:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Tourists at Jökulsárlón.jpg[edit]

Tourists at Jökulsárlón.jpg

  • Nomination Tourists at the glacial lagoon in Iceland. --GuavaTrain 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed snow, tilted, COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 13:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Normal overall exposure --Moroder 11:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One can argue about the overexposed parts in the background. But at least it's clearly tilted, as A.Savin said. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Flowering Artichokes.jpg[edit]

Flowering Artichokes.jpg

  • Nomination Flowering artichokes in a garden. --GuavaTrain 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poorly focused on flower, poor identification and categories. --A.Savin 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Category fixed, also for the following image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not very big, but adequate sharpness on the subject, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good focus on main subject, adequate DOF. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Flowering Artichokes 2.jpg[edit]

Flowering Artichokes 2.jpg

  • Nomination Flowering artichokes in a garden. --GuavaTrain 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inflorescence is too close to the bottom side imo, the other one is significantly better. --Nefronus 13:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

SDC on Blocks 2.jpg[edit]

SDC on Blocks 2.jpg

  • Nomination Tugboat Samuel de Champlain in drydock. --GuavaTrain 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily distorted (look at the car on the left), unsharp, COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 13:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I gotta go with Savin on this one.--Peulle 10:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Me too. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Former_Saint_Bonitus_church_in_St-Bonnet-de-Chirac_(2).jpg[edit]

Former Saint Bonitus church in St-Bonnet-de-Chirac (2).jpg

  • Nomination Former Saint Bonitus church in Saint-Bonnet-de-Chirac, Lozère, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 17:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition issues. Building is cropped and obscured by trees. -- GuavaTrain 03:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree; former here is entire here. Cropped building at the left is the other building. IMO trees don't disturb. It's a winter time, so no leaves. --Tournasol7 14:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Tournasol7 --Moroder 14:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Tournasol7 --Palauenc05 15:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Swallows_in_the_Trustom_Pond_field_(12271).jpg[edit]

Swallows in the Trustom Pond field (12271).jpg

  • Nomination Tree swallow nests in light fog by Trustom Pond --Rhododendrites 22:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition. -- GuavaTrain 02:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    There may be valid reasons for opposing, but I don't think composition alone is one of them here. Let's get other opinions. --Rhododendrites 16:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some areas of the photo are hazy, but the quality is good, overall, I have no problem with the composition, and the subjects are clear. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support My reasoning was the nests being so far away and turned away from the camera. Maybe I can't call that composition. I'll switch my vote. --GuavaTrain 15:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Widok_ze_skały_Okrążek_na_Tyniec_i_Wisłę,_20210623_1830_7602.jpg[edit]

Widok ze skały Okrążek na Tyniec i Wisłę, 20210623 1830 7602.jpg

  • Nomination View from Okrążek rock towards Vistula River, Tyniec Abbey and remote Camaldolese Monastery --Jakubhal 17:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but the colors seems to be not natural... --Tournasol7 05:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate more what do mean? This picture is taken in the evening, with the sun partly behind the clouds. What do you expect from light and colors here? --Jakubhal 07:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Less saturation. --Smial 19:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks natural to me. Good composition and sharpness. --Tagooty 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Tagooty. --Carsten Steger 15:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 15:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay 20:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me good quality, natural colors. --Knopik-som 03:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand Tournasol7’s point – at the first glance I was unsure about the colours, too –; but after some consideration I guess it’s just the contrast of the special red of the roofs with the green landscape that can irritate the eye. Comparing other photos of the abbey shows that the red of the roofs is OK. Therefore IMHO good quality – and beautiful, congrats! --Aristeas 08:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

File:P2N2019ClaraLuciani_07.jpg[edit]

P2N2019ClaraLuciani 07.jpg

  • Nomination French singer Clara Luciani on stage at 2019 festival Papillons de nuit, Saint-Laurent de Cuves, Normandy, France. --Selbymay 11:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 13:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! If the title of the photo is "French singer Clara Luciani", then I want to see the singer and not the micro. --Steindy 17:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steindy's objection is quite reasonable, but I find this a good photo, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 15:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support I too think it's a little disturbing that the mike is right in front of her face, but on the other hand the mike is a natural part of a concert setting, which means it belongs there.--Peulle 10:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Peulle. --Aristeas 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Razorbill_(Alca_torda)_taking_off.jpg[edit]

Razorbill (Alca torda) taking off.jpg

  • Nomination Razorbill (Alca torda) --Charlesjsharp 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately too much motion blur. --Steindy 20:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    The motion blur is on the wings. Shot at 1/2000 sec. --Charlesjsharp 08:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Nefronus 06:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Carsten Steger 15:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

File:N700a-Mt.Fuji.jpg[edit]

N700a-Mt.Fuji.jpg

  • Nomination A Shinkansen N700-2000 passing through Mount Fuji. (by MaedaAkihiko) --廣九直通車 09:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, suffers from motion blur even at 1/4000, and I do know these trains travel fast. I don't complain about the crop to the train.Rodhullandemu 11:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the poetry of the bullet train showing motion blur. It would be better if Fujisan were pinpoint sharp by contrast, but I think this is worth a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 23:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Rodhullandemu. --GRDN711 11:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Smial 20:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Series811-P9.jpg[edit]

Series811-P9.jpg

  • Nomination A JR Kyushu 811 series running on Kagoshima Main Line. (by MaedaAkihiko) --廣九直通車 08:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF. Only the front is sharp. --Steindy 20:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree The depth of field is quite sufficient for such a shooting situation. On the contrary, I even find the image very well-done in this respect. --Smial 12:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy. --GRDN711 11:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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