Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

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]] 11:21, 28 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 28, 2021[edit]

July 27, 2021[edit]

July 26, 2021[edit]

July 25, 2021[edit]

July 24, 2021[edit]

July 23, 2021[edit]

July 22, 2021[edit]

July 21, 2021[edit]

July 20, 2021[edit]

July 19, 2021[edit]

July 18, 2021[edit]

July 17, 2021[edit]

July 16, 2021[edit]

July 14, 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:Liquid_Jaggery.jpg[edit]

Liquid Jaggery.jpg

  • Nomination Liquid Jaggery. --RockyMasum 15:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality in my opinion and an interesting photo. Nominate to COM:VIC, too, if it's best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek 17:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe flash lighting is very distracting here; it casts very harsh shadows. There is something distracting and unexplained in the background. It's hard to find the point of focus in the image; the ladle is out of focus, the liquid in the pot is shadowed. --Lambda 02:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I take it, you oppose; if not, it wouldn't have been necessary to move this to consensual review. However, if you merely meant to comment, delete the oppose vote I noted for you. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lambda. -- Smial 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Ciboire_dans_la_basilique-cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Québec_36.jpg[edit]

Ciboire dans la basilique-cathédrale Notre-Dame de Québec 36.jpg

  • Nomination Ciboire --Wilfredor 11:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DoF, sorry --Uoaei1 04:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the conditions I think it’s good enough. --Nefronus 18:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unhappy with noise, DOF, and tight crop. --Smial 10:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Aerial_image_of_the_Gunzenhausen-Reutberg_airfield.jpg[edit]

Aerial image of the Gunzenhausen-Reutberg airfield.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial image of the Gunzenhausen-Reutberg airfield, Germany --Carsten Steger 19:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Too noisy for me. --Steindy 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Steindy: Thank you very much for your review. To learn for future nominations, I would be grateful if you could describe where exactly in the image you perceive the excessive noise. --Carsten Steger 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One could possibly criticise that the photo could have been a little sharper overall and that the blue cast could have been corrected a little. But I don't see any (disturbing) noise. Good enough, I think. --Smial 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Just good enough IMHO --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Plaque_of_the_monument_to_the_fallen_compatriots_in_Lyalitsy.jpg[edit]

Plaque of the monument to the fallen compatriots in Lyalitsy.jpg

  • Nomination Plaque of the monument to the fallen compatriots in Lyalitsy --Reda Kerbouche 06:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO not sharp enough and disturbance right below. --F. Riedelio 11:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We had a discussion about this kind of photo recently. My remarks are the same this time: This is a reflective surface that can't look pinpoint sharp the way another type of surface can. I think the photo is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I’d like to oppose. The surface/detail could be much sharper if not taken by a smartphone. Sometimes the smartphone photo quality is just not sufficient. --Nefronus 11:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 16:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see a really severe problem with this one. --Smial 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Dough-Donut-Dulce-de-Leche.jpg[edit]

Dough-Donut-Dulce-de-Leche.jpg

  • Nomination Dulce de Leche donut. (by Evan-Amos) --GuavaTrain 16:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Uncalibrated color space (sRGB recommended) --F. Riedelio 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality imo regardless of the color space (other nominations were promoted + the nominator is not the author). --Nefronus 22:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the color space is required according to the image guidelines. Maybe this can be clarified in the discussion? --F. Riedelio 06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My bad, you are right, so I remove my support vote. --Nefronus 08:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. The photo uses Adobe RGB, this is no doubt not a reason for a decline. "JPEG, Adobe RGB (1998), quality: 98, subsampling OFF" --Smial 10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The metadata of the file shows "Color space Uncalibrated".
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Whoever wrote the comment: You should not rely on the commons image description page to display correct or even complete metadata in every case. --Smial 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic photo. If the color space is no problem, it should be promoted. Maybe an FP, too? -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 16:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:2020-01-10_Women's_Super_G_(2020_Winter_Youth_Olympics)_by_Sandro_Halank–805.jpg[edit]

2020-01-10 Women's Super G (2020 Winter Youth Olympics) by Sandro Halank–805.jpg

  • Nomination Amélie Klopfenstein, Women's Super G at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics in Lausanne --Sandro Halank 20:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, sorry. Is there any chance you could upload a larger version? --Nefronus 00:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Above 2 MP and IMO good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 00:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image only very barely reaches the absolute lower limit for the image resolution required here on QIC. Since it is not an action photo, not a macro shot, not particularly difficult lighting conditions (except for the clearly overexposed background) and not a difficult photograph in the wild, it is clearly too small for me. Note: The camera used delivers 20 MPixels natively. --Smial 12:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose by Smial. Is this a downscaled photograph? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    It's not. It's a crop of a photo taken from a greater distance. It was simply not possible to get closer to the subject (podium) during the mascot ceremony. --Sandro Halank 18:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    Alright, so I remove my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 16:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Cirrochroa_thais_06.jpg[edit]

Cirrochroa thais 06.jpg

  • Nomination Cirrochroa thais. Tamil yeoman butterfly; from Kerala, India --Vis M 15:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. The leaf is sharper then the butterfly. --Steindy 19:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, the leaf is sharp, but the focal plane also goes through the butterfly’s eyes. QI for me. --Nefronus 00:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed, sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Black_Kite_Left_IITMandi_Salgi_Mar20_D72_14357.jpg[edit]

Black Kite Left IITMandi Salgi Mar20 D72 14357.jpg

  • Nomination Black kite (Milvus migrans) perching, IIT Mandi, Himachal --Tagooty 08:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Palauenc05 09:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tail is unfortunately obscored --Charlesjsharp 17:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With a perching bird, it is common that the tail is partly/wholly obscured by the perch. The focus here is on the body and the head as the kite searches the ground for prey. --Tagooty 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The tail would be cropped even if not obscured. The kite is unlikely to be searching the ground for prey. It hunts on the wing. Charlesjsharp 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Point about prey well taken, my comment was speculative! This is a sequence of images in which the kite was looking in different directions, sometimes downwards. --Tagooty 02:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tail does not bother me that much. For a quality image it seems fine. If it would have been a nomination for featured image, then most probably the tail factor would have played a major role. --Navneetsharmaiit 20:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_di_San_Bernardino_San_Nepomuceno_Salò.jpg[edit]

Chiesa di San Bernardino San Nepomuceno Salò.jpg

  • Nomination Painting of the Saint John of Nepomuk. --Moroder 09:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The top and bottom edges of the frame are blurred. Is the bluish "rain shower" on the right part of the painting? or unwanted reflections? --Tagooty 15:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your review. The painting was hanging high in the church and I had to do a strong perspective correction. Therefor the upper and lower margins at different distance and are a little bit out of focus because the image is focused in the middle. Reflections are almost inevitable in oil paintings and its difficult to find the right angle. The blue light is a mix of daylight and artificial illumination. --Moroder 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective correction was done well and the reflection is okay, but I see some dead pixels (fixable) and motion blur (unfixable unfortunately, sorry). --Nefronus 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'can't be a motion blur (which would be all over the picture) because I used a tripod and delayed release and i'm not aware of any earthquakes at the time ;-). Cheers --Moroder 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentSorry, I did not read the exposition info that carefully, so I delete my oppose. Still, there might have been a movement even with the tripod. I shall let others decide. --Nefronus 10:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The motion blur is visible all over the image and even in the surrounding. --Smial 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for the explanations. PC is ok. I get the reason for the reflections and appreciate the difficulty in this shot. However, IMO the reflections make it not a QI. --Tagooty 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur resp. double contours by camera shake. --Smial 09:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Smial 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Rúa_Manuel_Murguía.001_-_A_Coruña.jpg[edit]

Rúa Manuel Murguía.001 - A Coruña.jpg

  • Nomination Street sign of Rúa Manuel Murguía, in A Coruña (Galicia, Spain). --Drow male 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • No metadata available. --F. Riedelio 16:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, metadata are not required for QI. --Nefronus 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am not sure if the metadata (EXIF data) is necessary. Maybe this can be clarified in the discussion? --F. Riedelio 06:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exif data are not mandatory. --Palauenc05 09:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The original version had EXIF data, but it lost them when I modified the picture. I don't know how to do it better, sorry. -- Drow male 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Klonk_silurian-devonian_TK_2021-07-23_1.jpg[edit]

Klonk silurian-devonian TK 2021-07-23 1.jpg

  • Nomination International silurian-devonian stratotype, Klonk u Suchomast, Czechia --Nefronus 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! The rocks aren't sharp. --Steindy 23:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I think they are suitably sharp for such resolution, the exposition and the lighting conditions were adequate. This photo gives an overall view of the geological profile, more detailed rocks/layers are visible on the other one. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 00:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough to be printed to A4 or larger. A bit oversharpened, but not really disturbing. --Smial 16:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose More perspective correction --Commonists 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What about perspective correction? --Nefronus 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Commonists 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Zlatý_kůň,_Houbův_lom_TK_2021-07-23_1.jpg[edit]

Zlatý kůň, Houbův lom TK 2021-07-23 1.jpg

  • Nomination Houbův lom quarry, Český kras PLA, Czechia --Nefronus 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rocks on the left side aren't sharp. --Steindy 23:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review. Well, I could have used f/11 or f/13 since the left side is further away, but I think the loss of sharpness is rather unnoticeable. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 00:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    If it were indeed imperceptible, why did I notice it? --Steindy 00:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Your eyes are extraordinarily sharp. --Nefronus 00:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    No, my calibrated monitor ;-) --Steindy 00:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Could be sharper overall but good enough. English description is missing in the infobox, we don't get what is to see if we don't read the notes. --Selbymay 09:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, I expanded the description. --Nefronus 10:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best sharpness, but acceptable. --XRay 17:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per xray. --Smial (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really sharp at all --Commonists 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Black_hairstreak_(Satyrium_pruni).jpg[edit]

Black hairstreak (Satyrium pruni).jpg

  • Nomination Black hairstreak (Satyrium pruni) --Charlesjsharp 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The legs are cut off by the blurred leaf. A higher pick-up point would have been necessary here. --Steindy 23:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Insects are notoriously resistant to taking direction, and by the time a higher POV had been achieved, even if possible, it's unlikely the insect would still be there. Rodhullandemu 11:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Rodhullandemu. --Nefronus 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I may have missed it, but I don't think I saw information about the size of the butterfly in the en.wikipedia article. About how big are these critters? -- Ikan Kekek 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • wingspan ~37mm i.e. image shows 1/2 wingspan Ikan Kekek. This is a very rare butterfly in the UK. Revenge vote from Steindy because I oppose his footballers with missing hands etc. Charlesjsharp 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive, considering the size. You might note the size in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek 15:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality --Tagooty 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:FC_Admira_Wacker_Mödling_vs._FC_Red_Bull_Salzburg_(Cup)_2017-04-26_(052).jpg[edit]

FC Admira Wacker Mödling vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg (Cup) 2017-04-26 (052).jpg

  • Nomination Cican Stankovic, goalkeeper of FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 00:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hands cropped --Charlesjsharp 15:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto. Rodhullandemu 08:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The important things to me are his facial expression and stance. We don't need his hands, though I certainly wouldn't have complained if they had been included. -- Ikan Kekek 21:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Bore_Turku.jpg[edit]

Bore Turku.jpg

  • Nomination Bore (ship, 1960) in Turku. --Kallerna 04:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 04:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Regretfully, I disagree. The sail boat in the foreground is unnecessary and detracts from the ship. --GRDN711 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for sure. --Selbymay 10:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't object to the sailboat. Nothing much you can do about it and it's good for scale. Rodhullandemu 11:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Rod. -- Ikan Kekek 21:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photographer could have waited five minutes until the sail boat had gone by. Without knowing the height of the sail boat and triangulation, the sail boat does not tell you the height of the ship. Also, cutting off the masts of the ship was not necessary and does not support a QI rating. --GRDN711 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is not VIC, and I don't buy the idea that we should be enforcing only one kind of view of a ship. -- Ikan Kekek 23:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. Remark: The idea “the photographer could have waited …” is good, yes, but often it doesn’t work as expected because 5 min later much more distracting things or people can be in the frame ;–). I have often waited half hours and sometimes even a complete hour for a single shot of a beautiful building, without getting the distraction-free view I wanted. --Aristeas 08:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 08:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Amorphophallus_dracontioides_selon_les_stades_phénologiques_autour_du_complexe_Pendjari._03.jpg[edit]

Amorphophallus dracontioides selon les stades phénologiques autour du complexe Pendjari. 03.jpg

  • Nomination Amorphophallus dracontioides selon les stades phénologiques autour du complexe Pendjari (by Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN) --Adoscam 14:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--MaedaAkihiko 11:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not created by a Commons user. --F. Riedelio 15:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio: Why do you say that? Rodhullandemu 19:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Rodhullandemu: There is a redlink in the nominations (the user account "Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN" is not registered). According to the image guidelines, quality image candidates must have been created by a Commons user. --F. Riedelio 06:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio, I think it only means that the user hasn’t created a page, but since has a username, they must be registered on WP globally. It’s a matter of interpretation of the rules. --Nefronus 07:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @F. Riedelio: No user is required to have a user page. But if you look into it, he has made contributions. That, to me, makes him a Commons user. Rodhullandemu 08:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's debatable. If you've made contributions, you're a Commoner, period. -- Ikan Kekek 21:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe the user name in the “Nominations” section was misspelled “AMADOU BAHLEMAN FARID” instead of “Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN”. --F. Riedelio 06:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And he has a userpage now. However, I think the fruit, though pretty well photographed, is too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 00:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No description. The filename alone is not enough. Also slight underexposure, possibly fixable. --Smial 10:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 20:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:FC_Admira_Wacker_Mödling_vs._FC_Red_Bull_Salzburg_(Cup)_2017-04-26_(034).jpg[edit]

FC Admira Wacker Mödling vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg (Cup) 2017-04-26 (034).jpg

  • Nomination Rubén Martínez, assistent coach of FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 00:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose arm cropped --Charlesjsharp 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. Let us hear what other user says. --Steindy 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charlejsharp + the face/cheeks of the person look flattened by noise reduction. --Nefronus 07:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The arm is not a problem for me, nor the "flattened cheeks" (???) --Palauenc05 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems OK to me, too. -- Ikan Kekek 19:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face and hair too soft. --Tagooty 02:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This crop seems like a compositional choice to me. The rest is OK. --Peulle 11:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support --Commonists 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Neunkirchen_am_Brand_Kirche-20210411-RM-161219.jpg[edit]

Neunkirchen am Brand Kirche-20210411-RM-161219.jpg

  • Nomination Holy water font in the Catholic Church of St. Michael in Neunkirchen am Brand --Ermell 07:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Where does the red dot on the floor on the lower right corner of the photo come from? Editing error? --Hillopo2018 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In a way you are right. It is a hotpixel from the sensor and is removed now. Thanks for the review. --Ermell 10:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 18:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Hillopo2018, did you oppose? If you did, it's not necessary to oppose nor to change the status of a nomination to "Discuss" in order to have a discussion with the photographer. The best way to do that is simply to post a comment, which then is shown as "review". -- Ikan Kekek 05:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 16:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Maurice_(Ebersmunster)_(5).jpg[edit]

Église Saint-Maurice (Ebersmunster) (5).jpg

  • Nomination Saint-Maurice Church in Ebersmunster (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Best version has been promoted, see File:Église Saint-Maurice (Ebersmunster) (3).jpg. This one's inferior to the promoted ones. --Hillopo2018 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I believe that we can name similar photos. Gzen92 12:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So what if it's inferior to the others? The sky is a little noisy, though, so I'm not sure about how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek 05:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Noise ok, I think it's better. Gzen92 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Moroder 13:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Nefronus 07:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Spondia_mombin_(Fruit)_sur_un_papier_blanc_au_Bénin_03.jpg[edit]

Spondia mombin (Fruit) sur un papier blanc au Bénin 03.jpg

  • Nomination Spondia mombin (Fruit) on a White paper in Bénin --Adoscam 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Grainy at full size, but I'll support because per w:Spondias mombin, the fruits are only 4 cm long. Note the spelling, though, and please rename after the nomination is over. -- Ikan Kekek 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too grainy at full size. --Hillopo2018 08:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Pros: Advantageous lighting, apparently natural colours, certainly a useful, informative photo. Cons: Unfortunately too much image noise, too shallow depth of field, at the same time nowhere really crisp. The photo seems to have a slight motion blur. --Smial 11:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by Ikan Kekek. I removed the vote by User:Hillopo2018 because this new user is not allowed to vote yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:F-16_Demo_2016-4.jpg[edit]

F-16 Demo 2016-4.jpg

  • Nomination An F-16 from the Demonstration Team performing at the NAS Ft Worth Air Show in April 2016. --Balon Greyjoy 10:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    Can you remove the CA, esp. on the front of the wings? --Nefronus 05:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find this photo as too dark and a bit too noisy. --Hillopo2018 08:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough, IMO, though it must have been a really gray day to look like this around noon. -- Ikan Kekek 05:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am adding the count now and the CA still hasn’t been removed. --Nefronus 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the vote cast by new User:Hillopo2018 who was not allowed to vote yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Maurice_(Ebersmunster)_(3).jpg[edit]

Église Saint-Maurice (Ebersmunster) (3).jpg

  • Nomination Saint-Maurice Church in Ebersmunster (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. This one's the best of the set. Promotion for this one. --Hillopo2018 08:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This one's the best of the photo set. --Hillopo2018 08:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and many artifacts. --Ermell 20:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Noise ok, I think it's better. Gzen92 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO not sharp enough, especially the onion roofs. --F. Riedelio 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support now. -- Ikan Kekek 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too strong posterization. --Selbymay 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How many more of those almost identical pictures are you going to present us here? --Palauenc05 21:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    that day I took 35 photos, I kept four : two viewing angles (to hide the panel and container), with and without HDR (ok not obvious). Gzen92 [discuter] 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the vote by User:Hillopo2018 (new user, not allowed to vote yet). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Rechberg_NDOÖ_423_Pammerhöhe-3578.jpg[edit]

Rechberg NDOÖ 423 Pammerhöhe-3578.jpg

  • Nomination Pammerhill (696 m), natural heritage, Upper Austria --Isiwal 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion I feel that the main subject is small compared to the screen.--MaedaAkihiko 10:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree, Subject is the hill in whole not only the stone with the cross --Isiwal 10:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not find the reason for MaedaAkihiko comprehensible. This is a great photo in the best quality. --Steindy 12:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the composition makes it hard to tell what the subject is. If it's the whole hill, I'd want a wider shot, something showing that it's a hill. If it's the rock with a cross, I'd want it tighter and better framed. Right now the viewer is left wondering what the focus of the shot is. I actually think that the other image posted by Isiwal, File:Rechberg NDOÖ 423 Pammerhöhe-3585.jpg, is a better composition as you can see multiple rocks, the trees provide a frame, and you can tell it's a hill from the distant background. --Lambda 06:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decided to be w:BOLD and change my comment to oppose. Composition is one of the criteria listed in the image guidelines, and while we're not looking for FPC level of "wow" in composition, the very basics of composition say that you should be able to tell what the subject is. --Lambda (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality, and I don't believe in opposing unless the composition is really bad. This is not FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg 11:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Smoking,_Bo-Kaap,_Cape_Town_(P1060001).jpg[edit]

Smoking, Bo-Kaap, Cape Town (P1060001).jpg

  • Nomination Man smoking outside a coffee shop in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town --MB-one 21:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Did the person agree that this photo may end up on the Internet? --Hillopo2018 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think we can all agree that there's no expectation of privacy in public places. Rodhullandemu 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In what you agree with is not important, read the QI-guidelines: Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: as you can read here: The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual. This photograph does not work if there is agreement with the person sitting there. --Hillopo2018 08:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Tablet_of_the_memorial_of_the_mass_grave_at_the_Gdov_cemetery.jpg[edit]

Tablet of the memorial of the mass grave at the Gdov cemetery.jpg

  • Nomination Tablet of the memorial of the mass grave at the Gdov cemetery --Reda Kerbouche 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad lights --Hillopo2018 08:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shadows are a way of life for a photographer. Rodhullandemu 10:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plaque is perfectly viewable. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hillopo2018. Poor lighting. A useful image but not QI, IMO. --Tagooty 13:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan Kekek --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Nefronus 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is ok. --Mosbatho 15:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Changed my opinion on this image. --Mosbatho 17:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I’ve looked more thoroughly at the image and I agree with Tagooty. Useful, but the detail quality is not good enough imo. --Nefronus 22:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting is one of the most important variables in a quality photograph. For an item this size, full sun or full shade should be achievable by waiting until the correct time of day, or an overcast day would give more diffuse lighting. Or shadows could be filled in using a reflector or judicious use of flash. The shadows are significantly distracting and make the letters more difficult to make out. --Lambda (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, good enough, per Ikan. --Smial 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Nefronus 22:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Panoramic_view_of_Rome_from_Piazza_San_Pietro_in_Montorio_(4).jpg[edit]

Panoramic view of Rome from Piazza San Pietro in Montorio (4).jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Rome from Piazza San Pietro in Montorio (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough (motion blur), too less contrast, noisy foreground. --F. Riedelio 14:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, discuss please. --Tournasol7 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good sharpness to my eyes, even at full size (except for the plants on the left). Hazier in the background, but that's normal and OK. -- Ikan Kekek 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 18:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough --Hillopo2018 08:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the vote by User:Hillopo2018 (new user, not allowed to vote yet). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost the whole image has double contours/suffers from motion blur. Sorry. --Nefronus 11:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Blankenheim_Castle_03.jpg[edit]

Blankenheim Castle 03.jpg

  • Nomination Blankenheim Castle, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. --Tournasol7 08:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPerspective correction required, left side is leaning out a bit --Uoaei1 04:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's very minor. Almost not visble. --Sebring12Hrs 07:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1. Should be solved IMO.--Ermell 20:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The house in the middle looks wrong at first sight. But as everything around it as well as its vertical window lines are OK if measured with a ruler, this might be a problem of the house, not of the perspective correction. --JRff (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)