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 • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎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.

Contents

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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


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


Creator[edit]

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

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Resolution[edit]

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


Image quality[edit]

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


Composition and lighting[edit]

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


Value[edit]

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


How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

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


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

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


How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 16 2019 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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


Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

add nomination below this line, inside the gallery tags, in the following form — new nominations

January 16, 2019[edit]

January 15, 2019[edit]

January 14, 2019[edit]

January 13, 2019[edit]

January 12, 2019[edit]

January 11, 2019[edit]

January 10, 2019[edit]

January 9, 2019[edit]

January 8, 2019[edit]

January 7, 2019[edit]

January 6, 2019[edit]

January 5, 2019[edit]

January 4, 2019[edit]

January 3, 2019[edit]

January 2, 2019[edit]

December 31, 2018[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

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

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


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Águila_calva_(Haliaeetus_leucocephalus),_trayecto_ferroviario_escénico_Seward-Anchorage,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-21,_DD_100.jpg[edit]

Águila calva (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), trayecto ferroviario escénico Seward-Anchorage, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-21, DD 100.jpg

  • Nomination Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --Charlesjsharp 23:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the image size, the remaining noise is unobtrusive, and it is visible mosty in the background which is anyway (and correctly) out of focus. --Aristeas 09:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see only one eagle, and it covers only about 2 % of the image. Kallerna 11:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna,--Fischer.H 15:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:18-09-01-Schären_westlich_von_Långbådan_RRK7800.jpg[edit]

18-09-01-Schären westlich von Långbådan RRK7800.jpg

  • Nomination Schärenküste aus rotem Granit in der Nahe von Långbådani --Ralf Roletschek 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 23:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree.While looking to the horizon tilt is too strong. --Milseburg 20:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

    • ✓ Done right, it's correctet. --Ralf Roletschek 23:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me now. --Milseburg 14:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Schöne Postkarte mit viel Sättigung und herrlichen Farben. Erstmal Hallo Ralfǃ Wenn man kleinlich ist, beugt sich der Horizont immer noch etwas in der Mitte. Wenn´s du magst, schick´mir mal ´n NEF oder DNG. Ich jubel das mal durch DxO VG3, würde auch den Himmel etwas mehr entrauschen, aber lange gut genug für QI - Viel Erfolg und Spaßǃ --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 14:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 14:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Templo_Wat_Arun,_Bangkok,_Tailandia,_2013-08-22,_DD_08.jpg[edit]

Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 08.jpg

  • Nomination Wat Arun Temple, Bangkok, Thailand --Poco a poco 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bottom crop --Charlesjsharp 23:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 09:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sandy_Hill,_Ottawa_(20140920-IMG_9895).jpg[edit]

Sandy Hill, Ottawa (20140920-IMG 9895).jpg

  • Nomination Cultural heritage monument "The Albion Hotel", today part of the Novotel Ottawa --MB-one 11:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment with half a cyclist? --Charlesjsharp 10:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done cropped the cyclist. --MB-one 16:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now --Charlesjsharp 23:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 09:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_097.JPG[edit]

Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 097.JPG

  • Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 10:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose big spot top right and too dark --Charlesjsharp 23:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charlesjsgarp--Fischer.H 15:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 09:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ketchikan,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-16,_DD_06.jpg[edit]

Ketchikan, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-16, DD 06.jpg

  • Nomination Ketchikan, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Carlos yo 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Not sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 09:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Coquerel's_sifaka_(Propithecus_coquereli)_head.jpg[edit]

Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli) head.jpg

  • Nomination Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli), Peyrieras --Charlesjsharp 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your wildlife photos are really excellent. But color noise on a white fur is a bit disturbing. Could you remove it? It should be easy as for the bird recently reviewed. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Charlesjsharp 10:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Coquerel's_sifaka_(Propithecus_coquereli).jpg[edit]

Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli).jpg

  • Nomination Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli), Peyrieras --Charlesjsharp 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Easy to remove color noise on white fur again. Of course the lemur with the brown fur has this noise too at same ISO. But there it is less disturbing. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Charlesjsharp 10:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Jet_Airways_Flight_VT-JFR_at_Tribhuvan_International_Airport,_Nepal.jpg[edit]

Jet Airways Flight VT-JFR at Tribhuvan International Airport, Nepal.jpg

  • Nomination Jet Airways Flight VT-JFR at Tribhuvan International Airport, Nepal. Kind regards, --Tulsi Bhagat 10:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition --MB-one 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's right. But the composition does not matter in general. Or is it? Please discuss -- Spurzem 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've had an image opposed because the tip of an animal's tail was missing. --Charlesjsharp 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MB-one --Sandro Halank 13:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 13:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Raton_laveur_DSCF9235.jpg[edit]

Raton laveur DSCF9235.jpg

  • Nomination Raccoon in parc animalier de Sainte-Croix. --Musicaline 11:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great light but the subject is too blurry, sorry --Podzemnik 11:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. The animal's face looks very good. However, if I look at it larger than life, the sharpness should be even better. Nevertheless, it is a quality picture for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Charlesjsharp 22:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 09:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obvious motion blur.--Peulle 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 09:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lémur_catta_DSCF5485.jpg[edit]

Lémur catta DSCF5485.jpg

  • Nomination Ring-tailed lemur (back) in parc animalier de Sainte-Croix. --Musicaline 11:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition --Charlesjsharp 13:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The animal should already be recognizable.--Fischer.H 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 08:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The_University_Of_Manchester_Whitworth_Hall.jpg[edit]

The University Of Manchester Whitworth Hall.jpg

  • Nomination Whitworth Hall in The University of Manchester, England --Mdbeckwith 01:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flares --MB-one 14:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportTo avoid the reflections will be very difficult in this situation. I see that as part of the composition. However, the image could do with a bit more contrast but I think it's good enough for QI.--Ermell 08:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MB-one. Hard or not, I don't like the flares, especially the ones on the organ. -- Ikan Kekek 09:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ermell. It would be really difficult to avoid the flares here, and overall this is a great image. However, a bit more contrast would be nice and the flares are really very pronounced. IMHO it should be possible to increase the overall contrast a bit, but (at the same time) to lower the local contrast and sharpness of the flares, to make them less pronounced. Not easy, I know but this image is worth the extra work. --Aristeas 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for sharing this image! It is not only great, but also really informative. I always dreamed about buying the TS-E17mm f/4L, it is a wonderful lens, but seeing that it creates such pronounced flares in this situation (where other good lenses would also create flares, but often less pronounced ones) is really good to know before spending more than € 2K. --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flares are not an issue for me, but image have "bad HDR" look and needs more sharpening. Probably will look great with better contrast, can be improved. --Shansov.net 16:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MB-one --Sandro Halank 13:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some problems but ok for me --Paris Orlando (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Paris Orlando 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

File:गज़ेल_(Nanger_Granti),_त्सावो_ईस्ट_नेशनल_पार्क,_केन्या.jpg[edit]

गज़ेल (Nanger Granti), त्सावो ईस्ट नेशनल पार्क, केन्या.jpg

  • Nomination A Gazelle (Nanger Granti) in Tsavo East National Park --E.3 05:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support. The photo was sharper gekunt. and may have more detail.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality --Charlesjsharp 14:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is not there. --Podzemnik 07:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --Fischer.H 10:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I sharpened it and adjusted highlights if that makes any difference, thanks tho! --E.3 17:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blown highlights are disturbing. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality, sorry --Sandro Halank 13:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 13:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Церковь_Рождества_Иоанна_Предтечи_на_Волге_2.jpg[edit]

Церковь Рождества Иоанна Предтечи на Волге 2.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist on the Volga. By User:MedvedevphotoNiklitov 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Striking, and seems like good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please discuss, the picture is completely unsharp, colour noise in the water and the half car at the left is disturbing --Llez 22:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Fine-grained noise in the water, yeah. Sharp enough, IMO, at 3x my 13-inch laptop screen. Parts (not the subject, though) are unacceptably unsharp only at full size, if you're pixel-peeping, IMO. Car didn't bother me, but I predict that if nothing else sinks this, that will, since judges here are usually really bothered by that. -- Ikan Kekek 02:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -Car bothers the whole recording. --Fischer.H 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Car is disturbing, white balance is too yellowish, unsharp towards the right border, both sides are leaning in. However, it might be possible to fix that all someway, the image is worth it. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 09:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 08 Jan → Wed 16 Jan
Wed 09 Jan → Thu 17 Jan
Thu 10 Jan → Fri 18 Jan
Fri 11 Jan → Sat 19 Jan
Sat 12 Jan → Sun 20 Jan
Sun 13 Jan → Mon 21 Jan
Mon 14 Jan → Tue 22 Jan
Tue 15 Jan → Wed 23 Jan
Wed 16 Jan → Thu 24 Jan