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 30 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:25, 30 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 30, 2024

[edit]

August 29, 2024

[edit]

August 28, 2024

[edit]

August 27, 2024

[edit]

August 26, 2024

[edit]

August 25, 2024

[edit]

August 24, 2024

[edit]

August 23, 2024

[edit]

August 22, 2024

[edit]

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 11, 2024

[edit]

August 10, 2024

[edit]

August 9, 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:Panthera_uncia,_Krefeld_-_0284+91.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera uncia in Zoo Krefeld, Germany --Аныл Озташ 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Only one ear in focus, also bad processing (poserisation and noise) --George Chernilevsky 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    The back ear is slightly out of focus, yes, but does it really affect the image? What do you mean by posterisation? To be honest, the noise is marginal. --Аныл Озташ 14:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Milchstraße über dem Hochkalter und Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 1018-50.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milky way over the Watzmann mountain in Berchtesgadener Land (Germany) --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Wrong title. Watzmann is not in the image, but the Hochkalter. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. --Аныл Озташ 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok. No reason to oppose for me left. --Milseburg 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Hochkalter vom Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 0240-92.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Malerwinkel at Hintersee near Ramsau (Berchtesgadener Land, Germany) to the Watzmann and the Hochkalter massif - shot from the water --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Partly overexposed sky. Don't think the composition with so much sky is succeeded. Wrong title. Watzman is not in the image but the Hochkalter. The moon looks unnatural large for this setting. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. The moon was taken with a focal length of 70 mm, I have noted this on the page. I opted for the brighter sky in place of the sun instead of a sun star because I liked it better that way. --Anil Ö. (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Title is correct now. But I'm not really convinced about the other issues mentionend.--Milseburg 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Hochkalter vom Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 0541.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Malerwinkel at Hintersee near Ramsau (Berchtesgadener Land, Germany) to the Watzmann and the Hochkalter massif - shot from the water --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Title is wrong. Watzmann is not in the image, but the Hochkalter. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. --Anil Ö. (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support if the discrepancy-note concerning the coordinates is gone.--Milseburg 15:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Already gone. --Аныл Озташ 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support Ok now in my eyes. --Milseburg 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Carla_Simón_Winner_of_the_Golden_Bear_for_Best_Film_2022_Nr_5.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Carla Simón Winner of the Golden Bear for Best Film at Berlinale 2022. By User:Elena Ternovaja --Seewolf 20:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose the shadows on the face ruins picture, sorry --Ezarate 23:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO it is OK for QI. Please discuss. --C messier 19:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Great, atmospheric, lively portrait with available light. Unavoidable image noise perfectly controlled, focus exactly where it should be. --Smial 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. --Plozessor 17:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Aleja_Gwiazd_in_Kraków_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walk of Fame - Aleja Gwiazd in Kraków. Plaque for Claudia Cardinale --Kritzolina 14:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Can you perspective correct so that the plaque is face-on? (see some of my recent noms for examples) --Mike Peel 06:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I would like a discussion on this one. I think it's okay to have some images being taken from an angle like this; they don't all have to be from the face-on angle. Other opinions?--Peulle 08:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with 'the image being taken from an angle', also there are reasons for images with perspective, but in case you should skew the picture so that the plaque appears rectangular. --Plozessor 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Kühlungsborn,_Pier_--_2024_--_5213.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pier (and sailing ship “Engelina”), Kühlungsborn, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany --XRay 03:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mickaël en résidence 07:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The lights of the pier are overlapping the ship resulting in unnecessary clutter. In your other image (already QI) you managed to find a good way to show both but not this one. --GRDN711 02:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition works for me (and technical quality is good too). --Plozessor 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_August_2024_-_067.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination University Bridge, Seattle --Another Believer 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low due to over processing. --Augustgeyler 05:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective, strong banding in the sky, overprocessed. --Smial 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Smial. --Plozessor 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see the serious mistakes, so for me QI. On the other hand, I had problems with the photo of the cyclists, who were so tiny that they were barely recognizable among the blurry surroundings. -- Spurzem 21:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:149_New_Montgomery_roof_view_(Wikimedia_Foundation)_2016_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of skyscrapers being constructed, from the roof of the former Wikimedia Foundation building, 149 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California --Mike Peel 04:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough to be printed in A4 size. --Smial 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but above the bar for me. --Plozessor 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ущелье_Туюксу,_октябрь.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination October in Tuyuksy gorge, Medeu national park, Kazakhstan. By User:Exxocette --Екатерина Борисова 00:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sky looks unnatural dark to me. --Milseburg 15:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Was there a polarization filter used? Why is no EXIF data left and which camera was used here? Additionally the image looks downscaled. Was it? --Augustgeyler 10:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Valence_-_Esplanade_du_Champs_de_Mars_-_Kiosque_Peynet_-_Depuis_la_terrasse_du_musée_d'Art_et_d'Archéologie.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bandstand on a large square --Romainbehar 05:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Small tilt? --ArildV 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --XtraJovial 04:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, tilted. --ArildV 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO tilt is too small to disqualify it for QI. --Plozessor 07:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The walls are vertical on the left and right, bandstand is straight: the building in the background looks tilted because I took the photo from a corner of the square and not exact middle of the front side, where the I could climb on a building. Romainbehar 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor -- Екатерина Борисова 01:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Pompeya,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_231-238_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Pompeya, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 05:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose uneven sharpness --Georgfotoart 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For this kind of image, the sharpness is good enough. Ziko 16:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess, this has to go to CR --Poco a poco 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, couldn't spot any stitching errors or blurry frames. --Plozessor 07:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Bassd --PantheraLeo1359531 07:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PantheraLeo1359531 07:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Daepo_Jusangjeolli_Cliff_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daepo Jusangjeolli Cliff, Jeju Island, South Korea --Bgag 02:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks great at thumb size, but unfortunately the main wave is burned out and lacks detail --Екатерина Борисова 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There is still detail in the wave, but the subject is actually the cliff. --Plozessor 07:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor Jakubhal 00:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:The_shore_of_Arabian_sea_from_Cabo_de_Rama_Fort.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The shore of Arabian sea from Cabo de Rama Fort--I.Mahesh 00:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not QI. The bad crop with plants in front, bleached, red halo over plants. --Nino Verde 08:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor processing --Georgfotoart 11:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple issues, with halos around rocks (from too low blue threshold in CA removal) the most prominent one. --Plozessor 11:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Nino Verde: @Georgfotoart: , @Plozessor: , please review the image now. I have corrected the CA and crop, thanks. --I.Mahesh 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Not done significantly better, but the center of the image is still blurred --Georgfotoart (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment A bit better, but. Image looks bleached, very harsh light, overexposed. Maybe there is good reason to make it QI, but even after fixing some errors with exposure it will not be QI from my point of view. Probably, i'm wrong. --Nino Verde (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable now. --Plozessor 07:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 07:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Breakway_in_Simacourbe_climb_of_Tour_de_France_2024_stage_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Breakway in Simacourbe climb of Tour de France 2024 stage 13 --Shougissime 19:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose You have to look too closely to see where the tiny sharp main object is. Sorry -- Spurzem 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment that's the aim of the picture to look closely on the main topic of the picture. the breakway is small, 2 guys but all around you have the crowd, race vehicle, ambiance and scenery of what is the Tour de France. Main topic is in the focus and other elements are not in DOF but part of the picture because those elements contribute to the race. Moreover, this picture is already used on some wiki pages (not integrated by myself). --Shougissime 15:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Therefore the left and right parts and some at top and bottom would have to be cut out to work as composition for this goal. --Augustgeyler 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree here. Great sport photo and good technical quality and focus. A somewhat tighter crop is possible but not required imo. The context around the cyclists (the crowd, the road, the spectators, the billboards) is mostly interesting and give a more raw (as opposed to one picture-perfect newspaper images) image of the competition. I really like the images as it is.--ArildV (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per ArildV. --Plozessor 07:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As stated above. There is a tighter crop needed to get this composition working. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but per Spurzem --Jakubhal 00:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per ArildV. The image composition is somewhat unusual, but I have no technically justifiable objections. ..Smial 11:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for support. Picture is out of a standard frame, I don't want to crop a lot because the picture will lose its interest. Yes, there is a lot a informations but I think it illustrate very well what is Tour de France, sponsors, lots of vehicles, fans on the side of the road, a breakway in a climb and peloton chasing breakway without mercy. --Shougissime 17:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_-_intérieur_-_vitraux_(Chartres).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stained glass windows of the Notre-Dame de Chartres Cathedral (Eure-et-Loir). --Gzen92 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective somewhat overcorrected. Depending on the lighting conditions, architectural details can sometimes be deceptive, but the cables from which the lights are suspended should actually follow gravity and hang vertically. --Smial 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective correction corrected Gzen92 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thx, looks better, now  Support --Smial 11:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The sharpness in the upper part is not the best but enough in my opinion. -- Spurzem 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Given the standard of glass windows normally seen as QI, I agree that the detail level here is not high enough.--Peulle 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle,_WA_(August_2024)_-_79.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drip Drip Coffeehouse, Seattle --Another Believer 04:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is  Overprocessed and lost most texture and detail. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Hm, I think the judgment is a bit too harsh, this is a typical "good enough" photo for me, where the Apple optimizations (denoising, contrast manipulation, sharpening) don't interfere too much. --Smial 14:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I think there is a reason why we call this process here Quality Image but not Good Enough Image. --Augustgeyler 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I like to use "good enough" here on QIC as a synonym (or abbreviation) for "has no obvious defects and overall decent quality at a usual, normal viewing distance, for example an A4-sized print that you don't forensically examine at nose-to-nose distance". --Smial 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically it's "good enough for QIC" but it's clearly tilted (right side is fine but left side is heavily leaning out). --Plozessor 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:40, 24 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)
  • Indicivise. Sharp and in general recognizable object. The crop is tight, but most of the object is in the image. The background though is a little bit distracting, also because of the people. Ziko 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 15:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 22 Aug → Fri 30 Aug
  • Fri 23 Aug → Sat 31 Aug
  • Sat 24 Aug → Sun 01 Sep
  • Sun 25 Aug → Mon 02 Sep
  • Mon 26 Aug → Tue 03 Sep
  • Tue 27 Aug → Wed 04 Sep
  • Wed 28 Aug → Thu 05 Sep
  • Thu 29 Aug → Fri 06 Sep
  • Fri 30 Aug → Sat 07 Sep