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 August 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 August 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 August 21 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]] 16:55, 21 August 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).


August 21, 2024

[edit]

August 20, 2024

[edit]

August 19, 2024

[edit]

August 18, 2024

[edit]

August 17, 2024

[edit]

August 16, 2024

[edit]

August 15, 2024

[edit]

August 14, 2024

[edit]

August 13, 2024

[edit]

August 12, 2024

[edit]

August 11, 2024

[edit]

August 10, 2024

[edit]

August 9, 2024

[edit]

August 7, 2024

[edit]

August 6, 2024

[edit]

August 1, 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:Vängåvan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Main fountain in the park Vängåvan in Sundsvall, Västernorrland County, Sweden. Listz3 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The building in background is completly distorded. --Sebring12Hrs 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The buildong was corrected somehow but it isn't looks like "completely distorted" - compared with this image for example Sundsvalls Enskilda Bank building 45.jpg --Екатерина Борисова 22:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Listz3, the image shows perspective distortion. Additionally it looks  Oversaturated and level of detail is too low due to over-processing. --August (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Smial 12:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Νικολάου,_Γέρμα_0491.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Agios Nicholaos in Germa, Laconia. --C messier 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 18:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration should be removed here. --Augustgeyler 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, distorted. --Nino Verde (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise is borderline but IMO acceptable, and I think it's the church, not the picture, that is distorted. However, there is clear CA around the tower. Still, nothing that could not be fixed with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Södra_skolan_August_2024_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Södra skolan, Ystad --ArildV 09:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 09:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly tilted and lacking perspective correction --Poco a poco 13:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Thank for review --ArildV 19:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now. --Poco a poco 05:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Δημητρίου,_Χρυσάφα_1124.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The bell gables of the church of Agios Dimitrios in Chrysafa, Laconia. --C messier 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Somthing went wrong with perspective and tilt here. The tower in the middle looks tilted cw while the rest is vertical or leaning into other direction. --Augustgeyler 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Support I think that all the buildings are simply crooked. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Plozessor --Tmv 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  no response --Augustgeyler 14:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image somehow looks slightly distorted. If you would pull it below to the right, the large tower would probably get in the right position. But I have no suggestion for the tower in the background. In short: The photo is not bad, but I would not rate it as a quality image. -- Spurzem 16:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Airbus_H120,_AERO_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A4392).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eurocopter EC-120 B at AERO Friedrichshafen 2018 --MB-one 03:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A tight crop, but good quality. --Mike Peel 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. --Augustgeyler 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Liège_BW_2019-08-17_16-40-20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belgium, Liège, Collegègiale Saint-Barthélemy --Berthold Werner 15:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support QI for me. --C messier 17:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has some chromatic aberration and shows perspective distortion. --Augustgeyler 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart from the things Augustgeyler mentioned, there is a clear stitching error, especially visible at the roof in the center of the image. Left ca. 20 of that are razor sharp while the rest is blurry. --Plozessor 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 14:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Kühlungsborn,_Buhne_--_2024_--_4840.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Groynes on the coast in Kühlungsborn, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany --XRay 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF, very little in focus. --Tagooty 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. IMO the DoF is good for the effect. --XRay 08:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. I like the small dof here. --ArildV 13:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per ArildV. Ich wäre vll sogar noch etwas näher rangegangen an diese Seepocken oder was das da ist. --Smial 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Foundation_series_Cybertruck_at_dusk_in_San_Jose_dllu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Foundation Series Tesla Cybertruck seen in south San Jose. --Dllu 01:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; composition is good, but especially the rear is not sharp and somehow washed out. --Alexander-93 10:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Yes,somewhat low DOF,but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander. --Benjism89 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Martin_church_in_Znin_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A nice and wide composition. But I think there was too much PC involved here. This results in an unrealistic reproduction of the proportions (see this as reference). Additionally the right building is leaning out. --Augustgeyler 10:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unnatural curve of the church as it appears in the picture does not correspond to reality. See the view in Google Maps. -- Spurzem 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church is surely not curved in reality. If this is a panorama, should use a different projection. If it was a single shot with a wide-angle lens, it can probably be fixed with Photoshop "Spherize" function, lens corrections during raw conversion, or similar. --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, unrealistic geometry. --Benjism89 20:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 20:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Oxford_2024_038.jpg

[edit]

  •  Weak oppose Perspective and exposure improved. Sharpness remains borderline. --Augustgeyler 19:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler and Sebring12Hrs: Perspective redone, sharpened, plus a few other tweaks while I was at it. How does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
      •  Support Sharpness is not the best, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Still a bit dark, and at the top strongly distorted due perspective correction, but overall OK IMO. --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_rue_du_Fort_66_-_2024-08-05_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Maison située rue du Fort numéro 66. --Jmh2o 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Left crop isn't optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Jmh2o 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong PC led to unrealistic proportions here (see the elliptic traffic sign on the left) --Augustgeyler 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, I actually retouched the image. But I don't think the proportions have become unrealistic. I uploaded the original image to compare with the edited image. Sincerely. File:Charleroi - rue du Fort 66 - 2024-08-05 - 01 - original.jpg (Google translate) --Jmh2o 07:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jmh2o, I’m sorry to say this, but seeing the original image was quite surprising for me. I hadn’t expected such a drastic difference. The unedited image clearly reveals how challenging the original perspective was: the camera angle was very close, positioned high up, not centred, and slightly tilted. To create the final image, a significant amount of processing was needed. In my opinion, we should invest more effort at the location (in this case, perhaps waiting for the car to be moved, or using a tripod for a higher angle) rather than relying heavily on post-processing. Alternatively, if it's not possible to achieve a geometrically accurate image due to the circumstances, we could consider nominating it as a Valued Image instead of a Quality Image. In this case, the result appears  Overprocessed. --August (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment When you see Velvet or Tournasol7 pictures, this is the same thing. You can't take good pictures in thoose very tight streets. You need to correct the perspective. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If so you have to except that we can sometimes not get QIs form some objects. But in this special case the original image was taken without doing everything to get the best possible. It was not even taken from a centred position. --Augustgeyler 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: merci pour les conseils. --Jmh2o 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Le 5 août, j'ai eu plus de chance (Category:Rue de la Science (Charleroi)). Une seule voiture dans la rue. Mais, c'était les vacances scolaires, et derrière moi, il y avait une école. --Jmh2o 17:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • [Translated with AI] Oui, Jmh2o, la plupart des autres images de la catégorie semblent nettement meilleures. Il semble qu'il ait été nécessaire de faire moins de corrections sur celles-ci. En plus, tu as pu te placer dans un point de vue central pour de nombreuses maisons, ce qui aide beaucoup. Cependant, le meilleur résultat ne peut être obtenu que si tu pouvais également élever la caméra à la moitié de la hauteur du bâtiment, par exemple en photographiant depuis le premier étage de la maison en face :-) . Mais je sais que cela n'est possible que dans des cas très particuliers, lorsque ce type d'accès se présente par hasard. Merci pour ton engagement à documenter toutes ces rues. --August (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: merci pour le conseil, mais hélas, avoir accès à l'étage d'un immeuble privé est très difficile. Concernant mon engagement, je vis dans la ville que je photographie. J'y suis membre d'une très ancienne société (fondée en 1863) qui est attentif au patrimoine. "Photographier à tout prix" est pour moi important. Et revenir régulièrement sur les mêmes lieux pour voir l'évolution de celui-ci. Et puis, publier. Sur Wikimedia Commons, car cela me semble la solution libre la plus durable. Bien à toi. --Jmh2o 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Merci pour ton éclairage sur ton travail. Lorsque je formule une critique ici, ce n’est pas pour critiquer (par exemple) cette photo en tant que telle. Elle est déjà précieuse pour les raisons que tu as mentionnées. C'est pourquoi il est souvent judicieux de désigner de telles photos comme "Images de valeur". Cependant, dans nos discussions sur les candidats pour les "Quality Images", il s'agit d'examiner au cas par cas si une photo, dans les conditions données, a été réalisée avec suffisamment de soin pour répondre aux exigences de qualité des QI. Malheureusement, il y a des situations où des photos précieuses de bâtiments historiques ne peuvent pas être prises sans beaucoup de moyens : un accès à un bâtiment voisin, une grue ou un drone, par exemple. En effet, une correction excessive des perspectives verticales devient difficile au-delà d'un certain degré si l'on veut maintenir une reproduction précise. Et lorsqu'une correction intensive de l'axe horizontal s'ajoute, comme c'est le cas pour cette photo, je pense que l'image ne répond plus aux exigences des QI. Cependant, comme tu peux le constater dans la discussion, cela est interprété de manière très différente. Merci beaucoup pour tes contributions.
    English: Thank you for sharing insights into your work. When I offer criticism here, it's not to criticize (for example) this photo of yours as such. It is already valuable for the reasons you've mentioned. That's why it's often a good idea to designate such photos as "Valued Images." However, in our discussions about candidates for "Quality Images," the focus is on whether, in each specific case, a photo has been created under the given conditions with enough care to meet the quality requirements of QI. Unfortunately, there are situations where valuable photos of historical buildings can't be taken without considerable effort—such as access to a neighboring building, a crane, or a drone. Extreme perspective correction of vertical lines becomes difficult beyond a certain point when precise reproduction is the goal. And when, as in this photo, there is also significant correction of the horizontal axis, I believe the image falls short of QI standards. But as you can see from the discussion, opinions on this matter vary greatly. Thank you very much for your contributions. --Augustgeyler 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Contrast could be better, but it's acceptable. --XRay 07:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The vertical distorsion (due to correcting the fact that the picture was taken from street level) isn't bothering me so much here, but the horizontal distorsion (due to an uncentered point of view) is what makes me weakly oppose : the different width of the two central windows, for instance, creates something strange. --Benjism89 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Phalempin_chemin_voie_ferree.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Path along the railway, in Phalempin, France --Velvet 05:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too harsh IMO --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one actually works for me. To get an image with this much shade looking as sharp as it is, is difficult. Commons needs images of things that are not in direct sunlight too.--Peulle 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Peulle. --Plozessor 04:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows must be improved. Otherwise OK. --XRay 07:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think that a photo whose intended effect is to depict a shadow is improved by trying to brighten that shadow at all costs. I would even crop it square, as the bushes on the right distract from the subject. --Smial 12:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows too harsh. It is possible to take a well exposed picture of a highly-contrasted subject. Here, you can hardly see the details of the path and of the fence. --Benjism89 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry to react so late, I hadn't seen this discussion. What I think is interesting in this image is the blue on the leaves on the right. It's not CA but the image of the sky projected through the fence, which works like a pinhole camera. And the perception of blue diminishes if the shadows are reduced. That's why I've kept the contrast fairly high. --Velvet 06:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I am fine with the concept of showing intense shadows here. They might be part of the subject. But what is not QI is the overexposure and colour-clipping at the sky. --Augustgeyler 07:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reviews. New version uploaded, a bit brighter and with sky I believe a bit better. --Velvet 08:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 11:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Calanque_des_Eaux_Salées_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eaux-salées viaduct, Carry-le-Rouet. --Kallerna 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. I like the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Good composition but partly  Overexposed and blurred  Level of detail too low right third. --F. Riedelio 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support IMO acceptable. Hard to have both, shadowy parts as well as water reflecing bright sunlight, in the dynamic range of a single shot, but you also can't easily use HDR with a moving subject (like the waves). Right side is a bit blurry, but the bridge is framing, not the actual subject. --Plozessor 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition. Quality is close above the QI bar. --Milseburg 08:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 11:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 08:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Krems_ad_Donau_Jahn-Denkmal_Stadtpark-8693.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, city park of Krems an der Donau, Lower Austria --Isiwal 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has perspective distortion and looks slighty tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 04:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_77-79_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose defects near the hole in the roof. --Kallerna 10:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. This is a scene with a very high subject contrast, which was actually handled quite well as far as the interior is concerned. But since there are no hard shadows cast by direct sunlight, I have to assume that the slightly cloudy sky is the actual light source. And I'm always confused when it appears darker than the illuminated parts of the subject. At first glance, the openings in the roof look as if they were covered with dark-tinted glass. In contrast, the greenery on the right in the background is a little overexposed. Fixable? Wide angle perspective is imo acceptable. --Smial 12:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Works for me. --Benjism89 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Снегопад_над_озером_Каинды.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowfall over Kaindy Lake, Kolsay Lakes national park, Kazakhstan. By User:MariSimonova --Екатерина Борисова 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shot with a camera, capable of 46,9 megapixel, this image has only 2,7 megapixel. This image must have been scaled down or heavily cropped. --Augustgeyler 04:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment probably taken over the lake, therefore certainly a section --Georgfotoart 12:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler because it's a landscape photo.--Peulle 08:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It seems to comply with QI guidelines, also I really like the composition. Resolution is low but still meeting the standards. --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice motif, but regardless of whether it is a single shot or a stitched panorama, a landscape photo today should have at least 2000 pixels on the narrow side of the image. --Smial 12:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Swindon_Steam_Railway_Museum_2024_252.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GWR 7800 Class 7821 Ditcheat Manor on display in Designer Outlet Swindon, next to Swindon Steam Railway Museum --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out highlights at the roof. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Difficult to avoid with the roof windows. I've uploaded a new version that reduces the impact, if that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this information unfortunately is simply lost. --Augustgeyler 22:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better quality now. XtraJovial 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The burned highlights aren't really a problem here as they don't concern the subject of this photograph, and they are often quite unavoidable in interiors with transparent roof such as this one --Benjism89 21:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 10:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 13 Aug → Wed 21 Aug
  • Wed 14 Aug → Thu 22 Aug
  • Thu 15 Aug → Fri 23 Aug
  • Fri 16 Aug → Sat 24 Aug
  • Sat 17 Aug → Sun 25 Aug
  • Sun 18 Aug → Mon 26 Aug
  • Mon 19 Aug → Tue 27 Aug
  • Tue 20 Aug → Wed 28 Aug
  • Wed 21 Aug → Thu 29 Aug