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 November 16 2018 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]] 14:39, 16 November 2018 (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.

November 16, 2018[edit]

November 15, 2018[edit]

November 14, 2018[edit]

November 13, 2018[edit]

November 12, 2018[edit]

November 11, 2018[edit]

November 10, 2018[edit]

November 9, 2018[edit]

November 8, 2018[edit]

November 7, 2018[edit]

November 6, 2018[edit]

November 5, 2018[edit]

November 4, 2018[edit]

November 3, 2018[edit]

November 2, 2018[edit]

October 31, 2018[edit]

October 29, 2018[edit]

October 28, 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:Hamburg_Fuenfhausener_Hauptdeich_2.jpg[edit]

Hamburg Fuenfhausener Hauptdeich 2.jpg

  • Nomination Hamburg-Neuland, residential and farm building Fuenfhausener Hauptdeich 2 --KaiBorgeest 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Syed07 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Tilted, perspective. --Basotxerri 18:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With a small perspective correction it would be good. --Dirtsc 08:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Winter_sunrise_over_downtown_Cape_Town_from_roof_of_Strand_South_hotel.jpg[edit]

Winter sunrise over downtown Cape Town from roof of Strand South hotel.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise over downtown Cape Town --Daniel Case 03:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 12:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; there are lots of dust spots.--Peulle 07:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Peulle said. Fix the dust spots, and then it will be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed Daniel Case 05:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I still see a bunch of dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek 10:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Where? A lot of "spots" seem to me to be the areas where previous dust-spot removal was actually too successful and lightened the underlying area. Do you see any of that? Daniel Case 19:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Many places in the upper part of the sky. They look like light dust spots. If the result of removing dust spots is to create light dust spot shapes, I think there must be a better way. -- Ikan Kekek 04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_Wejście_do_kompleksu_Riese_w_Walimiu_2.jpg[edit]

2018 Wejście do kompleksu Riese w Walimiu 2.jpg

  • Nomination Project Riese, Complex Rzeczka, entrance in Walim --Jacek Halicki 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I too new to know if this matters, but the only difference I see in this and number 1 from yesterday is that the two people have walked further away from the car. Seven Pandas 02:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Per the Guidelines, there is: "no restriction on the number of similar quality images". That said, if a user nominates a lot of similar images, reviewers might eventually not bother reviewing them, as they're too similar to deserve their attention.--Peulle 11:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Different enough. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Balconies,_podolsk,_skyview.jpg[edit]

Balconies, podolsk, skyview.jpg

  • Nomination Balconies in a new building,Podolsk, Russia --DILIN 20:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are chromatic aberrations, the composition is disproportional towards the sky, and the COM:Categories are inappropriate. --A.Savin 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin, except that I think the proportion of sky is fine and the artist's choice (but I agree with him on everything else). -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Winter_view_of_typical_norwegian_hytte_(cabin)_coverd_in_snow_in_Rekdalsetra_area_-_Rekdal,_Vestnes,_Norway_2017-12-29.jpg[edit]

Winter view of typical norwegian hytte (cabin) coverd in snow in Rekdalsetra area - Rekdal, Vestnes, Norway 2017-12-29.jpg

  • Nomination Norwegian cabin in the Rekdalsetra (on the west coast of Norway). --Mænsard vokser 09:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Sorry, but there are quite some color fringes well visible. --Zinnmann 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree too. There are not only color fringes to fix, IMHO the subject is too small, too much "air" surrounding this nice "hytte". --Nerve net 17:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me.--Palauenc05 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. Everything else fine. --Smial 09:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 22:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Liebenfels_Hoch-Liebenfels_Burgruine_Burgtor_29122016_5933.jpg[edit]

Liebenfels Hoch-Liebenfels Burgruine Burgtor 29122016 5933.jpg

  • Nomination Portal of the castle-ruin in Hoch-Liebenfels, Liebenfels, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vengolis 03:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Is it really good? I see a very disturbing shadow. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Spurzem: I brightened up the shadows and cropped out some of the most disturbing parts. --Johann Jaritz 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I still see the very disturbing shadows of the branches over the door. You had apparently caught the wrong time of day for this photo. It's a pity. -- Spurzem 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm not very disturbed by shadows of branches on a door. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you very much for your kind support, Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, but it's not a favor, I'm just being honest about my reaction to the photo. Reflections of branches can actually be nice sometimes. Ikan Kekek 19:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, I don't see anything wrong with this shadow. --Trougnouf 19:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Trougnouf. --Smial 09:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ich merke, dass ich bislang zu wenig Ahnung von Bildgestaltung habe, und werde versuchen, bei künftigen Fotos von Kunstwerken oder Gebäuden möglichst auch Schatten von Zweigen auf dem Hauptmotiv zu haben. Auf die Bewertung hier bin ich gespannt. Ich werde es nachher schon mal mit einem fast unvermeidlichen Schlagschatten versuchen; vielleicht erziele ich damit schon einen positiven Effekt. ;-) Gruß -- Spurzem 10:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:MARTa Aussendetail IMGP2517 wp.jpg --Smial 11:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Smial: Bei dieser Aufnahme sind die Schatten ein Teil der Bildkomposition und nicht zufälliges Gewusel. Aber wie Du sagst: Über Geschmack zu streiten ist selten zielführend. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 12:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lothar, es spricht dir doch niemand ab, deine Meinung kundzutun und entsprechend abzustimmen. Nimm es nicht persönlich, wenn andere andere Meinungen haben. Über Geschmack streiten ist selten zielführend. Schlimmer ist es, wenn man bei objektiv meßbaren Kriterien wider den Tatsachen überstimmt wird. Aber auch dann frißt man halt meist stillschweigend die Kröte. --Smial 11:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Trougnouf 19:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Potroit_of_Rhesus_Macaque_at_Swayambhunath_Stupa_01.jpg[edit]

Potroit of Rhesus Macaque at Swayambhunath Stupa 01.jpg

  • Nomination Monkey at Monkey Temple (Swyambhunath) --Nabin K. Sapkota 07:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resolution too low for QI. --Yerpo 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - Fixed the resolution issues --Nabin K. Sapkota 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality acceptable now, IMO. --— Yerpo Eh? 05:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Could be sharper, but OK for QI, IMO. Probably pretty close to the line. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Potroit_of_Rhesus_Macaque_at_Swayambhunath_Stupa_02.jpg[edit]

Potroit of Rhesus Macaque at Swayambhunath Stupa 02.jpg

  • Nomination Monkey at Monkey Temple (Swyambhunath) --Nabin K. Sapkota 07:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resolution too low for QI, not great framing. --Yerpo 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - Fixed the resolution issues --Nabin K. Sapkota 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 18:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Nostra_Signora_del_Sacro_Cuore_Cristo_in_legno_di_ulivo.jpg[edit]

Nostra Signora del Sacro Cuore Cristo in legno di ulivo.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture of Christ bearing the cros in olive wood in the Nostra Signora del Sacro Cuore church in Rome. --Moroder 17:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thumbnail is quiet nice, but unfortunately the image is for me not sharp enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Bad upper right crop, but quality is acceptable at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek 02:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Michiel. Camera shake? --Basotxerri 09:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please compare this image with most of the QIC images and give a objective judgment indipendent from the camera I used --Moroder 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When I reviewed the image, I didn't check what camera you used. Look at the Christ's face at 100%, it's really unsharp. It seems that the camera wasn't stable on the tripod during the shot, I guess. --Basotxerri 17:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp.--Peulle 11:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, lighting, and colours, but focus not on the face. --Smial 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Ksar_Taghit2.jpg[edit]

Ksar Taghit2.jpg

  • Nomination English: Ksar of Taghit, Bechar, Algeria.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2018. By User:Chettouh Nabil --Reda Kerbouche 14:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Syed07 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Perspective not corrected, both sides are leaning out. --Basotxerri 09:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 09:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see nothing wrong with the perspective. --JiriMatejicek 22:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Panoramic_view_of_commune_of_Broquies_01.jpg[edit]

Panoramic view of commune of Broquies 01.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of commune of Broquies, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, but please remove the stitching error in the power lines. I'm afraid of power failure.--Milseburg 20:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Done, but I can't make it better. Tournasol7 06:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white midline is not very elegantly connected at two points--Ermell 07:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 08:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Humboldt_Penguin_(Spheniscus_humboldti)_(Mouth_open)_(CWPG).jpg[edit]

Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) (Mouth open) (CWPG).jpg

  • Nomination Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) (Mouth open) (CWPG) --Vauxford 14:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've noticed that recently many slightly lower-quality bird picture submissions have been accepted... This seems to be a tad bit better than quite some of them. However, it looks like there is considerable detail loss (as with some other pictures), and imho input from others is needed, hence I'm bringing this to CR. --GerifalteDelSabana 23:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good enough, IMO, and funny! -- Ikan Kekek 07:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dislike the green colour shift at the belly of the bird. Maybe it can be reworked. --Dirtsc 12:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Dirtsc: I made some adjustment but I don't know how to rework the colour shift on his belly. --Vauxford 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dirtsc. I don´t think this is a QI. The shapness isn´t convincing me too.--Milseburg 08:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Ermell 07:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also bothered by the greens and the black feathers are too pale. Besides, the background is ugly. -- Spurzem 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me too --Nerve net 08:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry, the objections to the green color shift have persuaded me. Vauxford, I'm not close to an expert on photo editing programs, but among other things, you could try using any such program by playing with the red-green slider. -- Ikan Kekek 11:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After my first review, I tried myself, to get rid of the color shift, but wasn't able to produce a good image. Maybe someone more experienced or using a better software can succeed. ;-) Greetings --Dirtsc 08:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 11:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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