Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Quality images candidates)
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 • ‎ไทย • ‎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 within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

  • 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 12 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 cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Shortcut: COM:QIC/L

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]] 12:47, 12 November 2019 (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



November 12, 2019[edit]

November 11, 2019[edit]

November 10, 2019[edit]

November 9, 2019[edit]

November 8, 2019[edit]

November 7, 2019[edit]

November 6, 2019[edit]

November 5, 2019[edit]

November 4, 2019[edit]

November 3, 2019[edit]

November 2, 2019[edit]

November 1, 2019[edit]

October 31, 2019[edit]

October 28, 2019[edit]

October 24, 2019[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:Ford_Thunderbird_1959_Ebern_2019_6200537.jpg[edit]

Ford Thunderbird 1959 Ebern 2019 6200537.jpg

  • Nomination Radiator of a Ford Thunderbird built in 1959 at the vintage car meeting 2019 in Ebern, Germany --Ermell 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: The bottom crop I find too tight, and overall the image doesn't seem to have a very clear subject. --Peulle 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ermell 22:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but i agree in this case --Andrew J.Kurbiko 10:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 07:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:River_Avon_in_New_Brighton_during_sunset,_New_Zealand.jpg[edit]

River Avon in New Brighton during sunset, New Zealand.jpg

  • Nomination River Avon in New Brighton during sunset --Podzemnik 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Heavy chromatic noise and (the almost usual) dust spot. --Steindy 19:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, a dust spot to the left of a lamppost should be fixed, but then it will be a QI. I don't see any heavy noise at all. -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Sunset_on_The_Shard_&_City_Hall_across_Thames_river_in_London.jpg[edit]

Sunset on The Shard & City Hall across Thames river in London.jpg

  • Nomination Sunset on The Shard & City Hall across Thames river in London --IM3847 04:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vengolis 06:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not made by a Commoner, so not eligible. --Tsungam 11:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, per se ineligible. Can this be speedily declined? -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 07:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Rheden,_dode_boom_op_de_Posbank_IMG_2285_2019-08-25_07.50.jpg[edit]

Rheden, dode boom op de Posbank IMG 2285 2019-08-25 07.50.jpg

  • Nomination Rheden-NL, dead tree at the Posbank --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow blights too much of the central object, cutting the tree in half. --Bobulous 18:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There are also diagonals in the sky. I find these things interesting, not a blight. Good quality to me. - Ikan Kekek 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, natural colours, good composition. --Smial 09:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 02:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Amanda_Palmer_Open_Piano_for_Refugees_Vienna_2019_06.jpg[edit]

Amanda Palmer Open Piano for Refugees Vienna 2019 06.jpg

  • Nomination Amanda Palmer, live open air in Vienna. --Tsui 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Can you crop the 2 items in the foreground at the bottom? --Poco a poco 07:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not. The head/hair and the piano were part of the setting there, the latter also explanining her pose (raised shoulder/arms, bent back). If it's disturbing I'd rather withdraw this or accept a decline. --Tsui 17:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed, it's disturbing to me, please, let's discuss and find a CR. --Poco a poco 10:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too disturbing, I fear, just as with my own photo.--Peulle 08:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - What's the bright thing in the lower left in front of her right side? -- Ikan Kekek 09:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That must be some hair of a person in front. --Granada 12:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this photo. -- Spurzem 19:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Großweikersdorf_Waasen_37.jpg[edit]

Großweikersdorf Waasen 37.jpg

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Waasen" in Großweikersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion

    Symbol unsupport vote.svg I withdraw my support after I had to take note, I have no idea about photography. --Steindy 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportTo end the votelessness.--Ermell 10:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Photo is OK, description is not. -- Ikan Kekek 05:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not know if it is a press house or a storage cellar with "Stüberl" in front of it, without having seen it from the inside. Maybe it also serves the owner for an overnight stay on an occasional visit? --Manfred Kuzel 06:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 05:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Gruber-Hirnkogel_04.jpg[edit]

Gruber-Hirnkogel 04.jpg

  • Nomination Summit cross at Vorderer Hirnkogel, Styria --Clemens Stockner 18:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good focus to main object, but the backpack is unfortunately spoiling the composition --Michielverbeek 19:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Overall good enough for QI. Let´s discuss. --Milseburg 19:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Michiel. The backpack is very distracting, and the photo isn't presented as a view of the cross and backpack. -- Ikan Kekek 09:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did not place it there on purpose, so the backpack kind of provides authenticity. I did not go up without it. --Clemens Stockner 10:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good technical quality with a minor composition issue. Matter of taste, not of quality. For sure not a FPC, but of course a QI. --Smial 13:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whether the backpack bothers or not is really a matter of taste. Maybe he should express that the ascent is done. -- Spurzem 23:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - You folks make a good point. I withdraw my opposing vote. However, I don't know what the accurate vote count would be. I think Michielverbeek opposed. -- Ikan Kekek 09:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 14:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Großweikersdorf_Waasen_16.jpg[edit]

Großweikersdorf Waasen 16.jpg

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Waasen" in Großweikersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Verticals need a fixing. --Ermell 08:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    * Which verticals do you mean? --Manfred Kuzel 11:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    The corners of the house. --Ermell 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Easy to fix. --Ermell 22:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The building edges of these old buildings are not always straight because they were often built by the winegrowers without the help of a builder or bricklayer. This becomes quite clear at the left vertical edge of the building, which flies back upstairs. And that can not be straightened! --Manfred Kuzel 07:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Manfred Kuzel:This is a brand new building and was certainly not built by winegrowers in their spare time.--Ermell 10:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ermell:Sorry, this is no brand new building, but an old and restored building where wine used to be made. --M@nfred (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Seems like good quality to me, but could you be more specific than "Object" in your file description? This is a house, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    *Answer: The "objects in cellar lanes" are almost exclusively “press houses”. A term that hardly anyone understands outside the areas where there are cellar lanes. --Manfred Kuzel 10:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It's not hard to understand if these were houses where wine grapes were pressed. "Object" is as general as "thing". To me, it's quite unsatisfactory as a description. I feel like voting to decline all pictures with such descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek 12:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer: I think we judge the photographic quality here and not the description. --Manfred Kuzel 14:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And you would be incorrect in thinking that. The Guidelines for QIs also lists image page requirements, and they include "an accurate description".--Peulle 08:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - And I'll vote to decline this photo on that basis and await your next move, reserving the right to vote to decline all images with such descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek 09:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:Then please give me a better description, which also understands someone who does not know what a "cellar lane" is. --Manfred Kuzel 10:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Why would you want to do that? There is always somebody that won't understand what a word means. That's part of the educational role of a lexicon. I say let's use the correct words to describe something, and if somebody out there has never heard of that something, they can look it up. :) --Peulle 11:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that in the cellar lanes today hardly a former press house is used for winemaking. Many are totally unused and abandoned to decay, others adapted to weekend homes and some are sometimes used as Heurigenlokale. How should I describe such a building differently than "object"? --Manfred Kuzel 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's like asking how you would describe a no-longer-used Roman temple to Diana, other than "object". Write "former press house". -- Ikan Kekek 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:"former press house" is not necessarily true without having seen the object inside. Some cellars were also used only as a storage cellar for barrels or even for bottles! --Manfred Kuzel 06:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 09:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Großweikersdorf_Waasen_15.jpg[edit]

Großweikersdorf Waasen 15.jpg

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Waasen" in Großweikersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 08:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Supporting vote withdrawn because "object" is not a description of anything. Tell the viewer what they're looking at. -- Ikan Kekek 05:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Question: Does anyone understand "entrance to a cellar tube"? --Manfred Kuzel 06:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 01:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Oporto_desde_Terreiro_da_Sé,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_05.JPG[edit]

Vista de Oporto desde Terreiro da Sé, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 05.JPG

  • Nomination View of Porto from Terreiro da Sé, Portugal --Poco a poco 14:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Strong loss in sharpness to the left. Is there anything you can do? --Ermell 16:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Chenspec 12:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still unsharp. --Ermell 22:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - DoF for full-on focus is shorter than usual for this kind of composition at QIC, but the overall picture looks good to me, and the effect sure looks intentional to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 01:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Erntezeit_auf_dem_Dänischen_Wohld.jpg[edit]

Erntezeit auf dem Dänischen Wohld.jpg

  • Nomination The work is done. Harvest on the Danish Wahld on the Baltic coast of Schleswig-Holstein --Milseburg 13:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not very sharp: wrong camera settings, sorry --Moroder 07:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think the sharpness is average for a QI and the composition is even better. The fact that the Danish islands are recognizable on the horizon in the original resolution, I find also noteworthy. I want to read some other opinions. --Milseburg 19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since two thirds of the image are the near field, I'm not interested in the Danish Islands --Moroder 22:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support It is OK for me --Llez 05:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pretty solid QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. I can't see wrong camera settings. ISO80 is lowest possible, and the lens seems to be pretty good at f/2.8. A small sensor camera will increase blurring by diffraction if stopped down even at f/4. --Smial 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks sharp enough to me at full screen on a 24-inch monitor. And it's well lit, with a pleasing composition. --Bobulous 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Sea_Star_560,_Nacka_(_1090791).jpg[edit]

Sea Star 560, Nacka ( 1090791).jpg

  • Nomination Sea Star 560 on Saltsjön, Nacka --MB-one 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Schönes Bild mit dem Hund im Fahrtwind, aber das Boot sollte bisschen dunkler sein. -- Spurzem 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    Frage: Warum sollte denn ein schneeweißes Boot dunkler sein? Mit gefällt es so wie es ist. --Manfred Kuzel 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Manfred Kuzel: Ganz einfache Antwort: …, weil man auch an einem schneeweißen Boot Konturen deutlich erkennen soll. -- Spurzem 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Ich erkenne alle Korrekturen und daher
    Symbol support vote.svg Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Es its fein für mich. And don't expect any more German out of me. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Staumauer_im_Detail_Bleilochtalsperre_20191026_002.jpg[edit]

Staumauer im Detail Bleilochtalsperre 20191026 002.jpg

  • Nomination The dam in detail of a water reservoir in Thuringia, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 16:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please, clean up the image of dust spots --Poco a poco 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Dust spots removed --PantheraLeo1359531 13:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      •  Not done Sorry, not done. Some more spots to see. --Steindy 23:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem_-_20190205-DSC_0971.jpg[edit]

Jerusalem - 20190205-DSC 0971.jpg

  • Nomination Jerusalem–Yitzhak Navon railway station. By User:Ilya Varlamov --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Chenspec 12:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise level to high IMHO --Poco a poco 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 05:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. Struck unsigned vote above. --Peulle 08:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Just ok for me --A.Savin 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The high ISO setting was obviously necessary, and for ISO3200 it still looks pretty good. --Smial 01:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seven Pandas 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:March_of_Ukraine's_Defenders_on_Independence_Day_in_Kyiv,_2019_153.jpg[edit]

March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 153.jpg

  • Nomination March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 --Ввласенко 10:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its a portrait of a guy, while more than 50% of space is occupied by someones back for no reason. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. I would suggest some cropping, but I think it's a good example of street photography and should not be judged according to criteria that apply to portrait photography in a photo studio. --Smial 09:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I consider criticism fair and therefore redid the picture. -- Ввласенко 13:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perfect, thx. --Smial 01:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one works. The guy with his back turned is not too disturbing since he is not cropped, and the man facing the camera is well framed.--Peulle 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cvmontuy 13:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:March_of_Ukraine's_Defenders_on_Independence_Day_in_Kyiv,_2019_345.jpg[edit]

March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 345.jpg

  • Nomination March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 345 --Ввласенко 08:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a portrait but mostly shows someones back. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The guy on the left is too disturbing here imo.--Peulle 09:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can live with distracting elements on portraits like this, but not with that unsharp guy in the foreground constitute 30% of the image. --Carschten 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The opportunistic portrait of the man in the center and right is great, and I think that considering this was street photography, it's a good picture, regardless of the presence of the unsharp man facing away from the camera. -- Ikan Kekek 22:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Smial 23:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand that the traditions of the classic portrait are broken. But this was done on purpose, because the two figures complement each other as a two-sided portrait. The inscription on the shirt as the signature on the photo. -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the inscription is cropped and not really readable --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only the name of the battalion is cut off (from below), because, firstly, it is read on the chevron of the main object, and secondly, so that the format is not too stretched. The rest of the inscription fully retains its meaning. -- Ввласенко 13:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 10:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Are there other voices? --Milseburg 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The portrait is good, but the back of the other person is a little bit distracting --PantheraLeo1359531 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the back of the person disturbing.--Ermell 10:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Wey_VV7_PHEV_at_IAA_2019_IMG_0722.jpg[edit]

Wey VV7 PHEV at IAA 2019 IMG 0722.jpg

  • Nomination Wey VV7 PHEV at Frankfurt Motor Show 2019.--Alexander-93 09:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC))
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not understand why you cut the photos so close. A good picture also includes some environment. --Steindy 01:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment after I had to take note, I have no idea about photography. --Steindy 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - In order to eliminate as many distractions as possible. You've seen pictures from car conventions with wider crops, right? They're usually way too distracting. As it is, even what's in this photo may be too distracting, and I'm not sure I'll vote pro or con. -- Ikan Kekek 07:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm going to vote against this on the basis that there are too many distractions, including part of the wheels of another car. Let's have more discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 11:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 11:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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