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]

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]

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 August 2023.
  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 August 2023.
  • 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 August 11 2023 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

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]] 07:18, 11 August 2023 (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


August 11, 2023[edit]

August 10, 2023[edit]

August 9, 2023[edit]

August 8, 2023[edit]

August 7, 2023[edit]

August 6, 2023[edit]

August 5, 2023[edit]

August 4, 2023[edit]

August 3, 2023[edit]

August 2, 2023[edit]

August 1, 2023[edit]

July 31, 2023[edit]

July 30, 2023[edit]

July 29, 2023[edit]

July 28, 2023[edit]

July 27, 2023[edit]

July 26, 2023[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:Fanta_grape_325ml_can-front_PNr°0882.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The front of a Fanta grape can by The Coca-Cola Company --D-Kuru 08:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Peulle 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    May be copyvio per COM:PACKAGE --Tagooty 10:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    It is not. See here --D-Kuru 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
     Support Ok, good quality. --Tagooty 03:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Господар_зоопарку.jpg[edit]

File:Plants_vs._Zombies_handheld_console.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Plants vs. Zombies handheld console was a toy produced by Burger King Corporation and Electronic Arts Inc. in 2015. --多多123 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too soft IMHO, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    This is the sharpest it gets. I would need magnification to get even more pixels. --多多123 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco:  Info New version uploaded. --多多123 16:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plants_vs._Zombies_handheld_console_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Plants vs. Zombies handheld console was a toy produced by Burger King Corporation and Electronic Arts Inc. in 2015. --多多123 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too soft. Sorry. --Ermell 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    It's soft as this is the sharpest it gets on an angle, my lens can't do any better. I tried to focus at the right and on the middle, it falls off on the left, it's something to do with the lens. --多多123 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Ermell:  Info New version uploaded. --多多123 16:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Schönberg_am_Kamp_Alte_Schmiede-1633.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Summer Recreation Museum, Schönberg am Kamp --Isiwal 05:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Question Good photo, but there is color moiré on many bright surfaces, and slight perspective problem with the right building. Is it fixable? --LexKurochkin 10:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Perspective fixed, I tried to correct the bright areas. I hope that's enough. Please note that these surfaces are unevenly structured and not uniformly colored --Isiwal 17:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
     Neutral  Half done Rather bright pink-green moiré is still visible on several windows and white entrance arch. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 06:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Volmerange-les-Mines, l'église Saint-Denis IMG 6067 2023-05-14 11.40.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volmerange-les-Mines in France, church: l'église Saint-Denis --Michielverbeek 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality,--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky is too noisy... Tournasol7 04:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is too noisy and the roofs are out of focus --LexKurochkin 06:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Yes, some noise in the sky, but still good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 09:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial, it's acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Good lighting, good colors, good composition, but the sharpness of the roofs could be a bit better. -- Spurzem 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Front_Young_Male_African_Elephant_Kafue_Jul23_A7R_05198.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Young male African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) crossing the road, Kafue National Park, Zambia --Tagooty 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The subject is not featured very well from this angle, and the crop omits a large part of it. --JPxG 02:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info The intent is to show flaring of ears and raising trunk. Other images (being posted) show the complete elephant. --Tagooty 03:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Ermell 22:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kia_EV6_GT_IMG_8180.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kia EV6 GT in Esslingen.--Alexander-93 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 18:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very unfavorable incidence of light; this makes the windshield and bonnet far too bright. Apart from that, the environment is unfavorable for a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Burnt highlights, messy surroundings/background. --Smial 10:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have a fair degree of tolerance for backgrounds in car pictures, but this one is just too distracting to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it only affects the windscreen. --多多123 多多123 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 17:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Осінні_контрасти_в_горах.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination protected area in Ukraine By User:Ryzhkov Oleksandr --Luda.slominska 12:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lens flare, fixable? --F. Riedelio 09:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the lens flare is part of the composition and rounds off the picture, good quality. --Аныл Озташ 15:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per F. Riedelio. As part of the composition not working for me. --Milseburg 16:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lens flare and looks oversaturated to me. --LexKurochkin 06:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Not a style that's much appreciated on this site. Some other sites might appreciate it more, and many movies use this kind of shot. -- Ikan Kekek 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Corvus_frugilegus,_Kraków,_20230225_0900_2882.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rook (Corvus frugilegus) on a tree in Krakow --Jakubhal 03:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacking detail in the underparts. Raise level of the shadows? --Tagooty 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Lightened up a bit, but it won't change the fact that the bird's belly is just in shadow. I'd like to check other reviews to see if even lighting on the subject is really necessary for QI --Jakubhal 04:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I've struck my oppose. --Tagooty 09:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment IMO shadows on the belly and some other parts are too dark. Is it fixable? --LexKurochkin 10:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
        • No, if I brighten the shadows of the belly, it would become quite noisy in comparison with the rest of the picture. As nobody supports this image so far as it is, I withdraw. Thank you both for the review --Jakubhal 15:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support good sharpness, very good composition, natural lighting. --Smial 16:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial--Luda.slominska 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sign_Mfuwe_Secondary_School_Zambia_Jul23_A7C_06277.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sign on main road, Mfuwe Day Secondary School, Mfuwe, Eastern Province --Tagooty 02:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I wish I would be able to see the bottom legs of the sign and center the entire sign in the photo. --Relativity 03:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info To me, the composition is good with sufficient of the legs shown. Let's hear other opinions, please. --Tagooty 04:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment The composition looks strange to me. Both tighter crop and crop showing the sign completely, including the legs, would be better. For tighter crop perspective correction and tilt correction will be needed. --LexKurochkin 10:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tram_5005_in_Basil.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tram 5005 in Bern --WikiEuropian 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Current collector and end of tram not visible --Conny Duck 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. If the end of the train were in the picture, there would probably be criticism that it would be too small to see. Sometimes I am amazed at the arguments. For me the picture is okay. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Spurzem --Isiwal 07:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Wide angle lens is not the best choice for such subjects, and the crop at the left is a bit tight, but sharpness and lighting are good. --Smial 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I'm fine with the end of the tram not being visible, as that emphasizes its length, but there is dark blue COM:CA in the wires on the left that should be corrected before we promote this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 10:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok now? Thank you --WikiEuropian 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, unless the rainbow shadows toward the upper left are also CA. -- Ikan Kekek 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Landersheim,_l'église_Saint-Cyriaque_IMG_5535_2023-05-08_14.26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Landersheim in France, church: l'église Saint-Cyriaque --Michielverbeek 06:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I'd brigthen it a bit, but still ok, I guess --Poco a poco 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Please don't blame me; but that's not what a quality picture taken at midday looks like. And if a heavy thunderstorm was brewing, causing the dark mood, then it would have been good to wait until after. To me, the picture looks totally underexposed, no matter what it is caused by. please discuss -- Spurzem 19:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment It was very dark that day and in the evening it started to rain --Michielverbeek 20:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support If you display the picutre at full size, you will not see brightness issues. --Sebring12Hrs 07:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Its ok for me too Bijay Chaurasia 07:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hallo Michielverbeek, the question is whether a picture is worth an award simply because the external conditions were bad. I keep thinking about planning to photograph a black cat in a dark basement with no light. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and rather noisy. --Smial 16:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Lothar, lass das mit den spitzen Bemerkungen, es bringt nichts ausser schlechter Laune.
Hallo Smial, wenn ich sehe, wie hier bewertet wird, kann ich solche Beispiele wie das mit der Katze manchmal nicht unterdrücken. Man muss halt mitunter ein bisschen übertreiben, damit die Leute verstehen, was gesagt sein soll. Denn es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass Außenstehende die Bilder anklicken, das Qualitätssiegel sehen und aus dem Staunen nicht rauskommen. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark IMO.--Ermell 22:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Maennolsheim,_gemeentehuis_IMG_5548_2023-05-08_14.51.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maennolsheim in France, townhall --Michielverbeek 06:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)br />
  •  Oppose. This is image is too dark too. Can you not brighten it? -- Spurzem 19:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment It was very dark that day and in the evening it started to rain --Michielverbeek 20:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The brightness is acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Brightness is acceptable for rainy day, but the upper part of the building and the roof are out of focus and slight perspective correction is needed. --LexKurochkin 10:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 10:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wiwersheim,_l'église_Saint-Cyriaque_IMG_5496_2023-05-08_12.57.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiwersheim in France, church: l'église Saint-Cyriaque --Michielverbeek 06:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose. I think the picture is much too dark. Perhaps it is possible to lighten the building so that more can be seen. As it is now, it is not a quality image for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree per Spurzem and Ikan. --GRDN711 14:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not so dark, but perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sant'agnese_in_agone_cappella.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination cappella di San Sebastiano in santa Agnese in agone (Roma) --GattoCeliaco 16:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support The image looks kinda mushy, the highlights on the staues face are a bit overshooting and it looks like it could need slight perspective correction. However, IMHO the composition is good and the other things are not 'bad enough' to not be a QI (#longestPromotionTextEver) --D-Kuru 18:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, not sharp enough --Isiwal 12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but a strange mixture of heavily over-sharpened and, presumably due to strong noise reduction, completely blurred picture elements - right next to each other. --Smial 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --LexKurochkin 10:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 10:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Empfangsgebaeude-Bahnhof-Pfronten-Ried-2023_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Station building at railway station Pfronten-Ried --Tuxyso 07:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very crooked. I have the feeling that a correction of the perspective has gone wrong. In my opinion it is not a quality picture. please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support don't see any problems here. --MB-one 12:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is difficult to judge whether a barrel distortion has been overcompensated or the verticalisation has been exaggerated a tiny bit, or whether both have been combined. For me, the problem is too minor for a rejection, but on the other hand it is not enough for a "pro" either. --Smial 12:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment. The picture reminds me of Peter Alexander's song Das ganze Haus ist schief (The whole house is crooked) from the 1957 film Liebe, Jazz und Übermut. -- Spurzem 18:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Ich kann dein Unbehagen nachvollziehen. Aber in der Vergangenheit hat sich hier halt die Zwangsvertikalisierung durchgesetzt, egal, wie übertrieben es wirkt. Freilich gibt es m.E. auf commons zahllose deutlich schlimmere Beispiele als dieses Bild, das wohl mit kleinen Korrekturen durchaus zu retten wäre. Ultraweitwinkel hätten niemals erfunden werden dürfen ;-) --Smial 21:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ruskeala_quarry.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruskeala quarry and boats, Republic of Karelia. By User:Anders98en --Florstein 06:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Underexposed. --Kallerna 09:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MoulinoisHy 19:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still underexposed. --Kallerna 04:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kallerna: New version uploaded. --Florstein 13:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Also oversaturated, unsharp & small resolution. --Kallerna 11:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    • @Kallerna: we are talking about Nikon Coolpix P7000. Please don't demand the impossible. --Florstein 16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Should we judge the image by the camera or by the image? --Kallerna 07:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
        • @Kallerna: We must to judge according to our common sense. It is ridiculous to demand from Coolpix P7000 the clarity of Z7. But good pictures can be taken with Coolpix P7000 anyway. --Florstein 08:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am surprised that nobody mentioned strange blurred spot in the center of the image, and, yes, it is not sharp enough, level of detail is insufficient for QI. --LexKurochkin 10:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very low level of detail --PantheraLeo1359531 20:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --PantheraLeo1359531 20:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wierum_(Noardeast-Fryslân),_10-07-2023._(d.j.b)_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wierum (Northeast-Fryslân), View of the clouds above the seawall.
    --Famberhorst 05:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose WB off, noisy, posterization. --Kallerna 09:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    Remark: the photo has no noise, but the veil clouds are (deliberately) pulled apart by the long opening time (2.5 sec).Do you think the WB is too cold?--Famberhorst 15:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    The noise can be seen even in the thumbnail-size. The photo is way too red. --Kallerna 04:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Correction WB.e.d. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the color of the water accurate? -- Ikan Kekek 08:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Answer: it is low tide, the mud is almost dry. The color of the wet mud can be seen through the water.--Famberhorst 15:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. I think some of the land looks overexposed if zoomed in out of context, but as a full picture, this looks quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 05:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low detail in full resolution and obviously tilted cw. --Milseburg 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Horizontal correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wierum_(Noardeast-Fryslân),_10-07-2023._(d.j.b)_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wierum (Northeast-Fryslân), View of the Wadden Sea from the seawall. (Breakwaters and mud flats.)
    --Famberhorst 05:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality --Michielverbeek 05:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose WB way off. --Kallerna 09:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    * Question My question.Do you find the WB. too cold?--Famberhorst 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WB off (cold/purple), sharpness, may need perspective correction (noticeable on the horizon in the left half). --Аныл Озташ 20:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. Correction WB.e.d. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The poles on the left half are unfortunately still tilted to the right due to the distortion. --Anil Ö. (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: The posts are formed by wind and weather. On the right, the piles are propped up with horizontal piles. Work is underway on a recovery plan for the seawall to better protect the coast.--Famberhorst 04:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, overall, and a good, interesting motif. -- Ikan Kekek 08:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support interesting --Isiwal 12:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Thu 03 Aug → Fri 11 Aug
  • Fri 04 Aug → Sat 12 Aug
  • Sat 05 Aug → Sun 13 Aug
  • Sun 06 Aug → Mon 14 Aug
  • Mon 07 Aug → Tue 15 Aug
  • Tue 08 Aug → Wed 16 Aug
  • Wed 09 Aug → Thu 17 Aug
  • Thu 10 Aug → Fri 18 Aug
  • Fri 11 Aug → Sat 19 Aug