Commons:Quality images candidates

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

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

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


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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 unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2024.
  • 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 June 29 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:54, 29 June 2024 (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
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


June 29, 2024

[edit]

June 28, 2024

[edit]

June 27, 2024

[edit]

June 26, 2024

[edit]

June 25, 2024

[edit]

June 24, 2024

[edit]

June 23, 2024

[edit]

June 22, 2024

[edit]

June 21, 2024

[edit]

June 20, 2024

[edit]

June 19, 2024

[edit]

June 18, 2024

[edit]

June 17, 2024

[edit]

June 15, 2024

[edit]

June 12, 2024

[edit]

June 11, 2024

[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  Oppose and  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".



File:S8_zwischen_Geisenbrunn_und_Gilching-Argelsried_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A train of the Munich S8 line between the stops of Geisenbrunn and Gilching-Argelsried going towards Herrsching passing through LSG Steinberg --Kritzolina 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 17:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bridge pier should be vertical. --Ermell 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Berlin_2024_377.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin Cathedral --Mike Peel 02:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image is too distorted due to camera angle and perspective correction. The pillars are leaning in. --Augustgeyler 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective correction is well done for me, however the file name could be better. --Tournasol7 10:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 10:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

File:150254_at_Barry_2024-06-22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 150254 at Barry station. --Suntooooth 18:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Am I right that you are the author of the image who uploaded it to flickr in the first place and later transferred it to Wikimedia – always under creative commons licence? --Augustgeyler 08:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality and resolution below minimum. --Augustgeyler 12:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is poor -- artefacts on the side and the writing not legible. Size is barely >2 MP. --Tagooty 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Castle_in_Malbork,_sculpture_in_the_church02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A sculpture in Malbork Castle --Lvova 04:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • It looks tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks ok to me --Kritzolina 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Kritzolina: I just made a comment on this nomination. Please be so kind and wait until the first reviewer got into contact with the nominator before voting against it. --Augustgeyler 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It was corrected anyway, so what to wait? Lvova 04:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is always helpful to leave a comment after you made an edit so that reviewers can check again.  Thank you. Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Kanika_Chorten_Sani_Zanskar_Ladakh_Jun24_A7CR_00773.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kanika Chorten, said to date from 2nd cent AD, Sani Gompa, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the perspective is not working well. Verticals are leaning in. The point of view is very low. Additionally the obstacle in the upper right corner should be cropped out. --Augustgeyler 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler:  Thank you. for the review. I have adjusted verticals and improved the crop. Please review the new version. Note that this chorten is said to be 1,800 years old so this lines are not very geometrical. It is located inside the small courtyard of the monastery with the only full view being from ground level close by. --Tagooty 05:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great! Thank you for editing. I changed to neutral. The image did improve. I just would like to point out that a higher point of view, resulting in a less upwards tilted camera, would have improved the reproduction of that monument further. --August Geyler (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Aston_Martin_DB12_Volante_IMG_9321.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aston Martin DB12 Volante in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I would like the picture if it wasn't cropped so tightly. -- Spurzem 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is also an image available, showing the vehicle with a less tighter crop. But for illustrating an article about the DB12, this version might work better. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Type_181_IMG_9608.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Type 181 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 16:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the front is in focus. ReneeWrites 10:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Indian_woman_graceful_performance_with_Rajasthani_folk_costume_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian woman graceful performance with Rajasthani folk costume --PetarM 08:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Thi 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange texture on the forehead (horizontal banding), needs discussion ReneeWrites 06:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I cannot see any strange texture, but the image might be a bit soft at full resolution. However, it looks fine with 4 megapixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The problem is, that I can not see any texture. The image looks  Overprocessed by intense de-noising. --Augustgeyler 07:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 14:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler:--Ermell 21:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. With so much texture lost, it looks like a reproduction of a painting, not a photo of a living person --Jakubhal 04:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_koorhek_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Choir screen in front of the high choir --ReneeWrites 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Due to chosen angle and lens the image is too distorted. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Who moved this to CR without commenting ore voting?
That was me, sorry. I wanted to write a comment about how this is a normal way for the screen to look at this angle & that the angle I chose wasn't that extreme, but in that moment I didn't know how to say that in a good way. ReneeWrites 11:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Did you apply perspective correction here? --Augustgeyler 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing is distorded here. Lol. --Sebring12Hrs 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems ok to me.--Ermell 21:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very well done perspective correction. --Tournasol7 04:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Malo-Konushenny_Bridge,_опора_фонаря.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Malo-Konushenny Bridge --Lvova 04:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition, but the main object is not in focus and some highlights are burned out. --Augustgeyler 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I absolutely sure that the head is in focus. --Lvova 21:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

File:June_2024_in_Seattle,_WA,_US_-_060.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Howe Street Stairs, Seattle --Another Believer 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition. But there was too much processing involved here. Over-sharpening and intense de noising led to  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support @Augustgeyler: What do you mean when you write in bold: Too little detail? For example, I see two dandelion leaves between the steps and can see the veins. I ask to discuss. Indeed the upper part in the middle is a bit overexposed. -- Spurzem 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did not write in bold. I was using a template referring to a technical issue where over-processing eliminates the detailed texture of the surfaces in an image. This is a common issue with some smartphone images and it is not detected by counting leaves but by comparing the accuracy of reproduction of surfaces. I know that you don't mind (or see) this due to other discussions in the past. But as long as we don't find a double image of the same object (one with and one without over-processing) I will never be able to give you that answer for the question you are asking usually and repetitively in those cases. I am sorry having no solution so far. --Augustgeyler 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Not too bad, good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 08:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Morena_de_cabeza_negra_(Gymnothorax_thyrsoideus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_136.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Greyface moray eel (Gymnothorax thyrsoideus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 09:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Looks good, but is there any way you can reduce the noise (particularly colour noise)? --Mike Peel 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done --Poco a poco 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Chiesa_ipogea_Chiesa_San_Sepolcro_Milano.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Chiesa San Sepolcro church in Milano--Moroder 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Good quality, is there any way to reduce noise in this picture ? --Benjism89 13:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for the comment. I've tried my best. I didn't want to smooth it too much, loosing detail. --Moroder 14:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. Some noise but also very high resolution (64mp). Clearly QI imo. --ArildV 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The image is too distorted. The floor looks like being in a slope to the left. Comparing to other images, that's not what the floor is like. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what you mean. They are rectangular tiles in perspective. Do you mean that we have to do also a horizontal perspective correction? --Moroder 16:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose In that case actually yes. Perfectly straight verticals combined with really crooked horizontals make this picture look very strange. --Plozessor 03:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment This little lack should be correctable without difficulties. Therefore I would not decline the image. -- Spurzem 12:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Oh come on, no exaggeration, please. A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And in this picture everything seems natural. Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 03:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Yes come on ! I do not understand this votes ! This picture is very good. The floor is litlle bit leaning but it's not a big distortion. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • And I don't understand why pictures that are leaning vertically by 0.01° are under no circumstance QI while pictures that are leaning horizontally by 30° are perfect QI. In this case, it's actually not the leaning floor that disturbs me but the background - especially as it wouldn't be hard to fix that. I might consider removing my opposing vote, but I will not support it in the current state. (I have a similar issue with these heavily distorted images, like church tower photographed from 2 m in front of it at the ground - but as long as the verticals are vertical, no one complains about the massive distortion.) --Plozessor 09:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I think it's difficult to have everything straight, the roof, the walls, the floor... Here the floor is leaning. In addition interior photos of buildings are very difficult to take. But I understand your opinion. The Tournasol7's file : File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg has a PC, but I don't think is a massive distortion. But it doesn't matter, I understand too. We just don't agree on this specific point. Have a nice day ;) --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @Sebring12Hrs: I am sorry to disagree. The floor is not "a little bit leaning". it is strongly distorted in my eyes. This happened due to improper use of a wide angle lens and / or at perspective correction afterwards. But I am here to learn something. Perhaps I am the only one who does see this (at least Plozessor could see it). --Augustgeyler 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Stettin_im_NOK2.JPG

    [edit]

    • Nomination Der Eisbrecher Stettin im Nord-Ostsee Kanal bei Rendsburg auf dem Weg zur Kieler Woche 2012. By Wusel007 --Nightflyer 12:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose It is a nice and already used image. But it shows motion blur / is too soft and has not much detail. --Augustgeyler 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Please don't overdo. I see a good and beautiful image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think the motion blur is quite obvious. --Augustgeyler 07:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    Where? -- Spurzem 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Can't see any noticable motion blur. In full resolution it's not perfect (which seems due NR), but good enough, and at 4 MP it's really good. --Plozessor 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Agree with Augustgeyler. When you look at the image in detail, something is not sharp (not sure if it's motion blur or color depth or something0. Part of it may just be the light. If it was a bright sunny day, this cell phone image might be acceptable. --GRDN711 03:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(10).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfortunately due to camera angle and perspective correction the church looks too distorted. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Still acceptable to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs ReneeWrites 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed and extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Kallerna 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:June 2024 in Seattle, WA, US - 057 - Howe Street Stairs.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Howe Street Stairs, Seattle --Another Believer 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 13:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The image looks over contrasted and over-processed. Over-sharpening and intense de-noising led to unnatural reproduction here. --Augustgeyler 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support What Augustgeyler says tends to be true, but in this case I think the result is still acceptable. There are a few small overexposed details where the contrast range of the sensor was not sufficient, but they don't destroy the overall impression, as is often the case with photos with bright white clouds. --Smial 09:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support. Very good for me. I see no of the many supposed lacks. -- Spurzem 10:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Not perfect but good enough for QI. Some overprocessing in the background but that does not disturb the overall impression. --Plozessor 03:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The file name should be more specific though. --Plozessor 03:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
      @Plozessor: I've been bold and renamed the file. I think you could just do this directly whenever you think that Commons filenames aren't specific enough, I think cases like these fall under #2 of Commons:File renaming. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Peces_anémona_ensillado_(Amphiprion_polymnus)_en_una_anémona_alfombra_de_Mertens_(Stichodactyla_mertensii),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_104.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Saddleback clownfish (Amphiprion polymnus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 07:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Only a very little area of the picture is in focus. Feel free to discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Ok, let's talk, there is a new version --Poco a poco 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Support Given the high resolution, the picture seems acceptable. At 3 MP it is almost perfect. --Plozessor 03:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_063.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens --Mike Peel 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Decline
    •  Comment I think it lacks sharpness. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Sharpened, does that look better? Marking as discuss due to the comment about others, since commenting on a nomination tends to hide it from other reviewers. Thanks. Mike Peel 00:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_064.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Monkey Puzzle (Araucaria araucana) at Kew Gardens --Mike Peel 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too much noise to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 00:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Scleranthus_perennis_3_RF.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Perennial knawel (Scleranthus perennis) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Blurred and not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)}
    •  Comment Thanks for the review. I replaced the file by a slightly denoised and sharpened version. Please also consider that the perianth has usually a length of about 2.5 to 3.5 mm. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Current version is QI for me. --C messier 17:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 05:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think intense perspective correction based on a very close and low point of view led to unnatural proportions. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I would skew it (make the right side lower) to reduce the extreme distortion. --Plozessor 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support --Jacek Halicki 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The church tower looks very unnatural due to unfortunate perspective correction. -- Екатерина Борисова 20:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And I'm not agree, it's not a extreme distortion and it not looks very unnatural. Maybe it's a bit too close, but no exaggeration, please. --Tournasol7 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
       Comment You cannot vote for your own photo. Vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Sorry my mistake, I wanted to use the template  Comment. --Tournasol7 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed, extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Kallerna 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Fri 21 Jun → Sat 29 Jun
    • Sat 22 Jun → Sun 30 Jun
    • Sun 23 Jun → Mon 01 Jul
    • Mon 24 Jun → Tue 02 Jul
    • Tue 25 Jun → Wed 03 Jul
    • Wed 26 Jun → Thu 04 Jul
    • Thu 27 Jun → Fri 05 Jul
    • Fri 28 Jun → Sat 06 Jul
    • Sat 29 Jun → Sun 07 Jul