Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Qic)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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 December 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 December 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 December 04 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]] 08:38, 4 December 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).


December 4, 2024

[edit]

December 3, 2024

[edit]

December 2, 2024

[edit]

December 1, 2024

[edit]

November 30, 2024

[edit]

November 29, 2024

[edit]

November 28, 2024

[edit]

November 27, 2024

[edit]

November 26, 2024

[edit]

November 25, 2024

[edit]

November 24, 2024

[edit]

November 23, 2024

[edit]

November 20, 2024

[edit]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

November 18, 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:Mercedes-Benz_Vito_CDI_(W639_MoPf)_fl_IAA_2010.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito (facelifted type W639) at IAA 2010 --MB-one 12:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 19:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, I understand the challenge of photographing cars at shows. But this picture is not QI in my opinion. The two people half hidden behind the doors are disturbing, there are three strong reflections and (fixable) underexposed. --ArildV 12:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:VLine_VLocity_departing_Platform_3_towards_Southern_Cross_Station_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station,_Sunshine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination VLine VLocity train departing Platform 3 towards Southern Cross Station at Sunshine Railway Station, Sunshine --Takerlamar 21:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GiovanniPen 14:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural  Oppose, image is not made by a Commons user. S5A-0043 04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Takerlamar is Philip Malis (the photographer), we've had this discussion before. Would be better if he'd upload the files directly and use "Own work" as source instead of his Flickr page. Picture is good btw. --Plozessor 05:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support My apologies, wasn’t aware of the previous discussions. Happy to support quality wise. 沪A 05683DS5A-0043 06:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Xtrapolis_train_operating_a_service_to_Belgrave_departing_Platform_2_at_East_Camberwell_Railway_Station_in_Camberwell,_Melbourne_-_54035393932.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Xtrapolis train operating a service to Belgrave departing Platform 2 at East Camberwell Railway Station in Camberwell, Melbourne - 54035393932 --Takerlamar 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural  Oppose Image is not made by a Commons user. S5A-0043 02:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Takerlamar is Philip Malis (the photographer), we've had this discussion before. Would be better if he'd upload the files directly and use "Own work" as source instead of his Flickr page. Picture is ok. --Plozessor 05:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support My apologies, wasn’t aware of the previous discussions. Happy to support quality wise.沪A 05683DS5A-0043 06:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Lychnis_flos-jovis_RF.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_240.jpg

[edit]

  • Ah, good spot. I've reduced their brightness, but can't do much more here unfortunately. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A. Öztas 01:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I think that this image still lacks quality. Feel free to send it to discussion, if you disagree. --Екатерина Борисова 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not an appealing composition in the first place, random angle/perspective. Many flowers not in focus, overall borderline quality. --Plozessor 05:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so sharp and blurred at the edges. --Sebring12Hrs 12:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Arbre_enneigé_(Colmar).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowy tree in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 14:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It's a pretty picture but with only 1.81 megapixels : low resolution under the 2 megapixels recommended at least. Sorry --An insect photographer 01:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)  Support I confused megapixels and megaoctets, in fact this picture has a good resolution and the new one has better exposition.--An insect photographer 18:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support [Added implicit supporting vote for sending declined picture to discussion per rules. --Plozessor 05:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)] It has 1,81 mb, not megapixels --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution is fine, but IMO it's underexposed (it was taken at daytime) and has a blue tint. --Plozessor 05:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Better I think. Gzen92 08:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes! --Plozessor 14:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--PaestumPaestum 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice and good. – Aristeas 09:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   – Aristeas 09:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Junonia_iphita_(Cramer,_1779)_-_Chocolate_Pansy_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking of Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779) - Chocolate Pansy WLB --Anitava Roy 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 19:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upscaled image with more pixels than possible with this camera --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Might be upscaled but it's still very good. --Plozessor 05:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is most certainly at least moderately upscaled because the maximum resolution of the camera mentiioned in the Exif data is 5184 × 3456 pixels and this image has 6000 × 4000 pixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality anyway --Mosbatho 14:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Choaspes_benjaminii_(Guérin-Méneville,_1843)_-_Common_Awlking_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking of Choaspes benjaminii (Guérin-Méneville, 1843) - Common Awlking . By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 04:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 19:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upscaled image with resolution higher than possible with this camera --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Might be upscaled but it's still very good. --Plozessor 05:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Nature_de_yali_Labé.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vue de la nature à Yali. by Thierno ismaël jallow --Aboubacarkhoraa 22:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Weak oppose It's a pretty picture but with only 462 kio pixels, under 2 megapixel recommended at least. Sorry --An insect photographer 01:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) with not specific categories, a bit difficult to find. For the resolution, I confused megapixels and megaoctets, so it's of course more than 2 megapixels. --An insect photographer 18:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The image looks downscaled and it's not QI in my eyes, but I am against confusing bytes with pixels when evaluating an image --Екатерина Борисова 02:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is quite good, except for the borderline resolution (3 MP which is above the threshold though). However, description and categorization are to generic. It is categorized under the city of Labé, but does obviously not show a city and probably belongs to the region, not the city, of Labé. And that region is big, which part of the region does it show, where was it taken, etc. Also the category "Trees" is not the most specific one. --Plozessor 05:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Also no EXIF data, no coordinates, etc. --Plozessor 05:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:20231023_St._Georg_Augsburg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View to the main altar of the church St. Georg in Augsburg --FlocciNivis 18:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 22:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Too much noise, windows too bright, lack of details --Berthold Werner 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture could be a little darker overall, especially the area around the windows, the triumphal cross and the altar. It is not difficult to improve it. -- Spurzem 12:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I have now reworked the picture a little and think that it is a QI when I compare it with some others. But I'm probably not allowed to give a rating. -- Spurzem 13:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Grenzdenkmal_Gompertshausen,_Denkmalschild.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gompertshausen border memorial, heritage sign --Plozessor 05:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A bit overexposed. The triangular sign will be more legible if exposure lowered. --Tagooty 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: The black part of the sign is bleached out, that has nothing to do with exposure. --Plozessor 05:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
* Oppose I'm ok with the sign, but the image is overexposed IMO. Will reconsider my vote if this is fixed. --Tagooty 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the image including exposure is ok as it is. --Plozessor 15:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Still uploaded a new, slightly darker, version. --Plozessor 15:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 Support Better now, thanks. --Tagooty 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Helene_von_Nostitz_-_Auguste_Rodin.jpg

[edit]

Where would it not be in focus? Thank you --GoldenArtists 07:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's an optical illusion, the bust appears blurred in reality. The picture's focus is ok (DoF is not optimal but acceptable). --Plozessor 05:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It would be interesting to know more about the bust. It does indeed seem to have been created out of focus by the sculptor. The question is: why is that? This does not make the sculpture beautiful in any way. The next question is whether we have a quality image of this unsightly sculpture. -- Spurzem 22:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I searched the Internet and did not find a picture where this bust is sharp. So maybe I've made a mistake opposing this image. On the other hand, I saw some pictures, where the lower part of the bust is sharp, but here it is not. So it's hard to make a decision. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2011-2015_Toyota_Alphard_Hybrid_rear.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rear view of 2011 Toyota Alphard Hybrid --TTTNIS 14:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose the van in the background is distracting --The Blue Rider 21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 15:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --PaestumPaestum 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Genesis_GV60_Magma_Concept_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6214.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Genesis GV60 Magma Concept at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 18:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose too much reflection on the car --The Blue Rider 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, if that is a reasonable argument; usually cars reflect some lights - outdoor and indoor. Therefore I want to bring this to discussion. --Alexander-93 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. --Plozessor 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The upper part is too dark, so that we have no difference between roof of the car and background. But I see no disturbing reflections. -- Spurzem 19:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Volvo_EX30_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6631.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volvo EX30 at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 12:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose too much reflection --The Blue Rider 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    Is that really too much? Basically shining surfaces reflect some light. --Alexander-93 16:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 16:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --PaestumPaestum 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Rocher_de_Dabo_(Backofenfelsen).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rock of Dabo, seen from the Backofenfelsen, Lorraine, France --Milseburg 13:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose overexposure --The Blue Rider 00:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Overexposure? Thanks for the review, but I don't think, that's right. I want to hear other opinions please --Milseburg 14:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with overexposure, if anything, imo it's a tiny bit under. It's fine. What bothers me more is the lack of focal length, but that's subjective ofc. :) --Mandula 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I meant underexposure and I also agree the focal point comment --The Blue Rider 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • weak Support Subject is adequately sharp and composition is appealing. Brightest pixel is at 89 % and personally I'd brighten the picture simply by using Auto Constrast in Photoshop or similar. But IMO it is still acceptable as it is. --Plozessor 05:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Brightness is fixable. I spent more light an uploades a new version. The lens does not offer any more focal length. I did not have another one. A crop would be possible. But that is difficult to undo if any user needs the wider crop. The other way around is better I think. --Milseburg 16:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --PaestumPaestum 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice view and the brightness is good now. – Aristeas 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   – Aristeas 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Berlin_2024_643.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A forced perspective of the Berliner Fernsehturm and Marienkirche where they appear as equal height --Mike Peel 06:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is this perspective acceptable ? --Sebring12Hrs 07:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective of the church may be considered artistic. But the leaning tower in the background and the shadow at the bottom of the picture are very distracting. In addition, the picture at the bottom is very tightly cropped. -- Spurzem 11:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Blackspot_sargeant_(Abudefduf_sordidus)_and_Pacific_sailfin_tang_(Zebrasoma_velifer)_Moorea.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blackspot sargeant (Abudefduf sordidus) and Pacific sailfin tang (Zebrasoma velifer) --Charlesjsharp 22:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose the white fish is slighty blurred due to motion and the background is noisy --The Blue Rider 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur (per The Blue Rider). Surprisingly strong noise everywere, not only in the background. --Smial 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with the blur and noise, but IMO both is acceptable for the situation. --Plozessor 04:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial -- Екатерина Борисова 17:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 26 Nov → Wed 04 Dec
  • Wed 27 Nov → Thu 05 Dec
  • Thu 28 Nov → Fri 06 Dec
  • Fri 29 Nov → Sat 07 Dec
  • Sat 30 Nov → Sun 08 Dec
  • Sun 01 Dec → Mon 09 Dec
  • Mon 02 Dec → Tue 10 Dec
  • Tue 03 Dec → Wed 11 Dec
  • Wed 04 Dec → Thu 12 Dec