Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 November 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 November 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 November 03 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]] 04:16, 3 November 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).


November 03, 2024

[edit]

November 02, 2024

[edit]

November 01, 2024

[edit]

October 31, 2024

[edit]

October 30, 2024

[edit]

October 29, 2024

[edit]

October 28, 2024

[edit]

October 27, 2024

[edit]

October 26, 2024

[edit]

October 25, 2024

[edit]

October 24, 2024

[edit]

October 23, 2024

[edit]

October 22, 2024

[edit]

October 21, 2024

[edit]

October 20, 2024

[edit]

October 19, 2024

[edit]

October 18, 2024

[edit]

October 17, 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:Il_Pitosforo_(Otranto).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Il Pitosforo tree (Pittosporum) , Otranto, Italy --Bgag 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Harsh lighting, greens appear washed out. Fixable? --Tagooty 04:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose In the new version the greens have become browner, looks less natural to me. --Tagooty 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Slaski_tydzien_5057.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The part of monument of John of Nepomuk in Wrocław --Lvova 12:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Ok, given that the picture is from 2011. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The left arm and hand aren't in focus. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 04:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sarlat-la-Canéda_-_Place_de_la_Liberté_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sarlat-la-Canéda (Dordogne, France) - Liberty square --Benjism89 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something is off with the sky colors (parts of the sky are just plain purple). Sharpness is borderline. About the blurred faces, personally I don't have an issue with them but in general they are usually not appreciated here, and for scenes like this not necessary. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree for the blurred faces. --Sebring12Hrs 04:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Plaque_at_La-Z-Boy,_Newton,_MS.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque at the La-Z-Boy office in Newton, Mississippi, USA. --Ktkvtsh 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs PC. Otherwise good. --Tagooty 02:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction. Plaque should be rectangular. --Plozessor 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: After a little correction I think it is good now. Best regards. -- Spurzem 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me now. --Plozessor 12:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 12:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sompura_Mahavihara_2024_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panels 9original) of Sompura Mahavihara. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 06:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 01:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Pilot 111 SE Visby October 2024 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PIlot boat Pilot 111 SE in Visby habour.--ArildV 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very good but slightly tilted (as can be seen from the houses in background), can you fix that? --Plozessor 04:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As there are no votes, moved from Discuss back to Review --Tagooty 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, must have been a mistake, sorry. I just wanted to review. --Plozessor 05:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for review. New version uploaded.--ArildV 07:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now! --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The vote above is from Plozessor in this edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=951399209&oldid=951398971. @Plozessor: Please remember signing your votes! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, thx. Added signature. --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Partial_open_wing_Nectaring_of_Papilio_demoleus_Linnaeus,_1758_-_Lime_Swallowtail_WLB_DSC_5414.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Partial open wing Nectaring of Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1758 - Lime Swallowtail --Sandipoutsider 16:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. Borderline level of detail and hexagonal lens reflection in the eye --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sandipoutsider: Had not spotted the hexagonal in the eye - fixable? --Scotch Mist 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Support withdrawn until eye fixed! (Temporarily have used "Oppose" as I do not know how to express temporary withdrawal of support otherwise. --Scotch Mist 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Why not just temporarily strike the supporting vote? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, that hexagonal thing is weird. Otherwise the picture is fine. --Plozessor 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Partial_open_wing_Nectaring_of_Graphium_agamemnon_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Tailed_Jay_(Female)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Partial open wing Nectaring of Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) - Tailed Jay (Female) --Sandipoutsider 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a nice animal, an interesting perspective and not an easy shot. However, sharpness of the butterfly is a bit too low IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough since the butterfly makes only a little portion of the image anyway. --Plozessor 10:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Старый_люк_3.10.24_СПб_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A manhole cover --Lvova 14:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose not alligned --GiovanniPen 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Now the main object is as smooth as possible. --Lvova 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Foxfield_Light_Railway_2024_091.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Janus 2868 Ludstone at Foxfield Light Railway --Mike Peel 09:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)I hadn't seen the purple CAs, suspending my vote until it's corrected. Crop works for me. --Benjism89 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Moving back to support now CA has been fixed. --Benjism89 09:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CAs in the upper right corner. The crop doesn't work so well for me. Pleaase discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebring12Hrs (talk • contribs)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. Crop is unusual but interesting and works for me. Will support if CA in upper corners is fixed. --Plozessor 10:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, thx! --Plozessor 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Desierto_de_Wahiba,_Omán,_2024-08-17,_DD_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wahiba Desert, Oman --Poco a poco 05:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Doesn't look really sharp to me (especially the car and the background), sorry. --Benjism89 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Come on! looking for a tiny car in the background and near the border to estimate the sharpness is not fair. The sand dune in the front, which occupies more than half of the picture is sharp. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Having looked carefully a second time, maybe I was a bit hard on this, I'll rethink about it. The point is, as the subject of your picture is very uniform (low contrast and little chroma variation), one's eyes get attracted by details (such as the car), and I would like to see this kind of landscape pictures sharp almost to the horizon. --Benjism89 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Foreground is sharp, it was taken with f/11, backup sharpness is adequate. --Plozessor 10:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The blurry dunes beyond the first one spoils the image for me. If the top is cropped so it is mainly the front dune, it would be QI to me. --Tagooty 13:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Nieborów_2023_05_Manufaktura_Ceramics.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nieborów Manufaktura Ceramic Plates, Vases & Tiles Display --Scotch Mist 06:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Quite good for a picture taken in low light conditions, without a tripod I assume. The reason I'll decline is that resolution is low as a result of downscaling, as file history shows : which is against image guidelines. --Benjism89 19:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Even for FP's, down-sampling is "preferred", not mandatory, and if contributions are to be encouraged in indoor settings when flash not an option from those not carrying a tripod then imo this situation provides justification for d-s exception, presuming the 2 megapixel rule is observed - otherwise most images at full size (well beyond 'A4') are considered "too noisey" for QI - interested in the views of others on this topic! --Scotch Mist 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think nobody asks (at least not me) for a 50 Mpx image to be perfectly sharp when viewed at full resolution. And I do understand that taking a sharp, unnoisy picture in a low light environment, when using a tripod is prohibited or impossible, is hard. When I review a QI candidate, I always check sharpness and noise at the same resolution (more or less 4 MPx), so that I judge the same way a picture taken with a high-end professional camera and one taken with a more basic equipment. But even if your image isn't perfectly sharp when viewed at over 4 MPx (which is understandable in my opinion for an interior subject), it's still worth uploading to Commons a higher resolution, as this might be useful to reusers willing to print, correct perspective or crop your image for instance. --Benjism89 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is too low (blown highlights, dark shadows, noise) given the already low resolution of 2.6 MP. Otherwise agree with Benjism89, there's no need to take the "no downscaling" rule too strictly, I'd accept a picture downscaled from 50 to 20 MP, but here it's too much. And downscaling aside, if it's barely over the minimum threshold of 2 MP it should be quite perfect to pass. --Plozessor 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for your review - your assessment seems fair and reasonable in concluding that downscaling should not automatically be ruled out although this particular example does perhaps not warrant such an exception! --Scotch Mist 11:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Niasviž_Corpus_Christ_Church_Interior_2023-07-03_6275.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Corpus Christi in Niasviž, Niasviž, Belarus‎. --Mike1979 Russia 07:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 12:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part of the altar is much too bright. For me it is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, upper part is overexposed / burned / too bright, can probably be solved with better raw conversion and/or a brightness gradient in post-processing. --Plozessor 05:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per others --Scotch Mist 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Canis_lupus_familiaris,_Neuss_(DE)_--_2024_--_0010.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Educational assistance dog (Labrador) --A. Öztas 13:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately lack of DoF (the culms are sharp but the dog isn't) --Plozessor 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The head is sharp and in focus, low DOF is acceptable here --George Chernilevsky 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Full body should be in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per George Chernilevsky. --Smial 08:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF. --Tagooty 02:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per George. But please fix over-categorization (since the dog has its own category, the image should not be in the same categories, for example Labrador retriever and therapy dog). Also clearly a yellow and not a chocolate labrador). --ArildV 13:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot to change that after creating the category. --A. Öztas 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Tagooty 02:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Macan_4_IMG_2159.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche Macan 4 in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok imo. --ArildV 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is a little bit borderline, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given the resolution, I find the image sharpness acceptable, in any case good enough for an A4 printout. The image composition also stands out pleasantly from many other parking lot photos. Unfortunately, the rear window and roof are overexposed; if something could be done to improve this, I would support the candidate. --Smial 12:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, the overexposure could be fixed, but unfortunately the focus is off - the rear wheel is close, but the rest is out of focus. I don't think this is recoverable... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Renault_Master,_Busworld_Europe_2023,_Brussels_(P1140367).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Renault Master by Gépébus at Busworld Europe 2023 --MB-one 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Is there a way to photograph it with a less busy background? --Buidhe 05:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Trougnouf 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I would say that's not possible. It is what it is.--Peulle 13:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. --Smial 08:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good, background and lighting are reasonable, have seen worse. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 26 Oct → Sun 03 Nov
  • Sun 27 Oct → Mon 04 Nov
  • Mon 28 Oct → Tue 05 Nov
  • Tue 29 Oct → Wed 06 Nov
  • Wed 30 Oct → Thu 07 Nov
  • Thu 31 Oct → Fri 08 Nov
  • Fri 01 Nov → Sat 09 Nov
  • Sat 02 Nov → Sun 10 Nov
  • Sun 03 Nov → Mon 11 Nov