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 12 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]] 09:18, 12 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 12, 2024

[edit]

August 11, 2024

[edit]

August 10, 2024

[edit]

August 9, 2024

[edit]

August 8, 2024

[edit]

August 7, 2024

[edit]

August 6, 2024

[edit]

August 5, 2024

[edit]

August 4, 2024

[edit]

August 3, 2024

[edit]

August 2, 2024

[edit]

August 1, 2024

[edit]

July 31, 2024

[edit]

July 30, 2024

[edit]

July 29, 2024

[edit]

July 27, 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-AMG_GT_Black_Series_IMG_0324.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-AMG GT Black Series in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The image isn't in sharp focus at full resolution. --Needsmoreritalin 03:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is QI for me. We should not overdo. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_George_church_in_Eisenach_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint George church in Eisenach, Thuringia, Germany. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 00:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Dull light and tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 20:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --C messier 20:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Selección_de_Voley_Argentina_previo_a_Paris_2024_-_BugWarp_(52).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Argentina men's national volleyball team during their last training in Argentina before the start of the 2024 Summer Olympics. By User:BugWarp --MB-one 11:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cut off hands. --Augustgeyler 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Professor_Muhammad_Yunus-_Building_Social_Business_Summit_(8758300102).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus. By User:WikiPedant --RockyMasum 17:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apparently not taken by a Commons user. --Plozessor 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Did you vote twice on the same nomination here? I think this can not be counted. --August (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wanted to remove the first vote but that didn't work. --Plozessor 16:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Tesla_Model_S_Plaid_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9278_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tesla Model S Plaid at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well composed. But DoF is too small. Only the very front of the car is in focus. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think sharpness and contrast can be improved and the crop should not be so tight. Therefore I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Sharp enough overall, and no disturbing background. --Plozessor 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Berlin_2024_032.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martin Luther Memorial, Berlin --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 07:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out details at the "book". Additionally low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed with Augustgeyler, blown white --George Chernilevsky 09:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August. --Plozessor 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:54, 11 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_675.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The inside of the Kew Gardens Nash Conservatory --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well composed. But due to intense noise reduction level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO. --Plozessor 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:J41_678_Bf_Le-Schönefeld,_Völkerschlachtdenkmal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from track 6 facing south-southwest, with the Monument to the Battle of the Nations in the distance (Leipzig). By User:Falk2 --Augustgeyler 01:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Most parts of the image are blurry --Екатерина Борисова 01:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this was intentional by the author. He focused on the main signal. Please discuss. --Augustgeyler 21:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose For me, neither the description nor the composition indicates that the subject would be the main signal. Picture is lacking DoF and almost everything is blurry. --Plozessor 04:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Course_en_ligne_féminine_de_cyclisme_sur_route_aux_JO_d'été_2024_27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination M. Vos and B. Vas at the 2024 Summer Olympics. --FreCha 03:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Tight crop on the right, tyre is slightly cut. Is it possible to adjust that ? --Shougissime 09:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No sorry, it's the original framing. --FreCha 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_167.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TD and TF at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Cars at the edges are cut. --Sebring12Hrs 21:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've cropped to focus more on the 4 similar cars, the ones at the edges are always going to be cut in a line-up like this. Does that help? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Week support. The composition works better when you view the photo in full size. --ArildV 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technically good image. But even in full size the composition does not work IMO. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image of MG cars and good quality for QI -- Spurzem 08:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Works for me. If it would be possible to have the right car complete without having the mudguard of another car in front of it, that would be better, but I understand that it's not possible. --Plozessor 04:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Wels_Stadtplatz_24_Salome_Alt-Haus-6627.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Salome Alt-Haus, Wels, Upper Austria --Isiwal 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Purple CAs on the right building and tree (background), I can't add notes. --Sebring12Hrs 22:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 22:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the CAs should be removed while there are not so disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the issue is too minor. Even without correcting this is QI. --Augustgeyler 08:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • May be you are right... --Sebring12Hrs 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 09:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm always surprised by the evaluation criteria. What bothers me about this picture is that the left side and the oriel of the building are too dark and the right side is too light. But that could be improved. -- Spurzem 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the exposure is fine and the contrast between the left and right side realistic (rather on the border of overcorrected). Further adjustments to shadows and highlights would only create a washed out, dull, HDR-feeling. Mo details are lost, neither in the dark nor in the light parts.--ArildV 15:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment High quality but a dust spot in the upper left corner.--ArildV 15:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment A bird... --Isiwal 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the bird. But above is a dark circle, typical dust spot.--ArildV 18:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is Dust spots, not easy to find, but it is there. I marked it. --August (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for reviews --Isiwal 16:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support--ArildV 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --ArildV (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:AC_BD_Annuntiatenbach_24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cultural heritage monument in Aachen --Grunpfnul 16:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Graffiti is problematic because you rarely know what is written there --Georgfotoart 09:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As a part of the building, the graffiti should be in the documentation of the building top --Grunpfnul 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's right. The only question is what is written there. Is it art or are they negative sayings? --Georgfotoart 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support What could be written in the graffiti that would disqualify the image for QI? --Plozessor 09:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know any of them, for me it's like a foreign language --Georgfotoart 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't get the problem here. The only critic I could point out is the intense level of perspective correction applied here. But it is OK for QI. --Augustgeyler 19:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't want to agree with something I don't know what it means. The image itself is fine. --Georgfotoart 08:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ---Augustgeyler 19:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Riedel_Imme_100_noBG.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorcycle "Riedel Imme" 1948/49 --Auge=mit 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very straight and usefull image. But its resolution is borderline. Scaled so small it should be sharp. But it is too soft. --Augustgeyler 19:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It did improve. --Augustgeyler 19:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Agree that it's borderline but IMO it's just above the bar. --Plozessor 09:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If it is allowed during the application process, I could subtly sharpen the image (using "unsharp mask")...--Auge=mit (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure. --Plozessor 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I did: very gentle sharpening (only the motorcycle, not the background and shadows)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Petersburg._Alexander_Column._Reflection_of_lanterns_on_the_cobblestones_of_the_Palace_Square.jpg

[edit]

  • ✓ Done I improved the description according to your suggestion.  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 08:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the new description. But I still doubt the technical quality of the photo. First of all it's too dark and too yellow even for the night cityscape. Cobblestones look sharp enough but the lantern is blurry. Perhaps the reflection does not have to be sharp? Let's hear what other users have to say. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think colours are OK and sharpness is exactly what I would expect from such a composition. It is well exposed and not too dark. It is dark due to the fact that we have a reflection of pitch black night sky within the water. But let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 08:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting composition and adequate quality. --Plozessor 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 16:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment A lot of green CA. And could use a bit more clarity. --Plozessor 04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, thank you --Poco a poco 14:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, CA ist mostly gone (now there are few purple remains) but in general it's still not clear/sharp enough IMO. Feel free to object and move it to discussions. --Plozessor 04:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, please, let's discuss. I've uploaded a new version, this is a QI (at the latest now). --Poco a poco 07:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now, latest version is good indeed. --Plozessor 09:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 09:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:North_Fields_Testa_Lungnak_Zanskar_Jun24_A7CR_01140.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fields north of Testa village, Lungnak valley, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I can see some purple CAs on tje right mountain. --Sebring12Hrs 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I don't see any CA even at 200% zoom. Please mark the location. --Tagooty 04:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moving to CR for other opinions. --Tagooty 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't have my computer, but my phone, I can't add notes. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are traces of purple CA around the snowfields at the top right. --ArildV 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @ArildV and Sebring12Hrs: Thanks for the reviews. Removed purple CA. Please review the new version. --Tagooty 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks, good now. --Sebring12Hrs 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. Clearly QI imo.--ArildV 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --ArildV 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Гриб_в_заповеднике_Ертис_Орманы.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good now. --Augustgeyler 08:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version was uploaded by author. Overall quality is good. Красный 08:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now good --Georgfotoart 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 04:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Sancerre_-_Tour_des_Fiefs_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sancerre (Cher, France) - Interior of Tour des Fiefs (2nd floor), a remnant of the medieval castle --Benjism89 06:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Distorded. Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is the kind of wind angle pictures where I really don't agree with you. Perspective correction would create something really unnatural, and I believe that this picture is much better without PC. Moving this to CR to see what others think. --Benjism89 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment difficult situation, but the door and the screen are actually distorted --Georgfotoart 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This is a tough decision. One thing I can say with certainty: Perspective correction should not be applied here, as the intentional distortion is part of the wide-angle composition. I do appreciate the wide-angle approach and the idea of using this aesthetic for such a small room. However, combined with the upwards-tilted camera, the geometry ends up lacking any vertical reference. Taking all this into account, I am inclined to support this nomination. The only thing that makes me lean towards opposition is the absence of even a single straight horizontal line. Because the image isn't perfectly centred relative to the wall with the door, it gives the impression that the floor is sloping down to the right. For this reason, I have to weakly oppose. --August (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Actually, I applied a (small) horizontal perpective correction, so that horizontal lines are parallel : have a closer look to the tiles of the floor, the lower end of the wall with the door and the lower stones of the two central arches, they all align horizontally. The two lights are not aligned but they are not exactly at the same height. --Benjism89 09:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_308_C_Hybrid_IMG_0065.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot 308 C Hybrid in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment At full resolution the car is mostly out of focus. If you reduce the image size, it may appear sharper. --Needsmoreritalin 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Regarding to the guidelines, images should never be downscaled. --Augustgeyler 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not in focus. --August (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Сары-могол_8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yurts in Sary-Mogol botanical sanctuary. Alai District, Osh Region, Kyrgyzstan. By User:Artur198686 --Красный 07:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Wrong WB. --ArildV 08:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment better but still not correct imo. Second opinion? --ArildV 07:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very hard to tell here. It might be good now. --August (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Colors seem ok. Quality is acceptable, but still wondering why an α6000 at ISO 100 can't produce a sharper picture with less noise in the sky. Probably raw conversion could be better. --Plozessor 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nobody noticed the Sensor Dust in the sky? Colors off, Noise, no QI for me --Grunpfnul (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Huế_2024_July_-_Bao_Quoc_Temple_(Chùa_Báo_Quốc)_-_img_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_69.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Qulity to me looks good, but I wonder about the ceiling: are there two withish dust spots? --J. Lunau 12:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --J. Lunau 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this image suffered from very intense perspective correction leading to unrealistic dimensions. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, in theory fixable though. --Plozessor 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me.--Ermell 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Site_Security_Control_Center,_Wachstube,_Blick_nach_außen_--_2024_--_4570.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guardroom (view through the window to the entrance) in the Site Security Control Center at the Dülmen-Visbeck Special Ammunition Depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
     Info In case anyone is wondering about the blurred spots: These are stains and scratches on the glass of the window that cannot be removed. Given the age of the object, this is normal. --XRay 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I appreciate, that the defects are due to the window glass being old. But for this motif, it doesn't matter IMO. The same view could have been shot from in front of the defective window. --MB-one 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment However, this would not achieve the effect of being able to see all the way to the entrance from the guardroom. But that was very important to me for this picture. --XRay 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok with the explanation. "View from the guardroom." --Plozessor 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 07:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doesn't make it for me, sorry. A shot through the glass of a historic window would be interesting if you could see some elements of this window, such as its frame. But if the only elements you can see of this window are blurred spots, what's the point ? This picture would be the same if it had been taken through a dirty 21st-century window. Per MB-one, this should have been shot from in front of the window. --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 04 Aug → Mon 12 Aug
  • Mon 05 Aug → Tue 13 Aug
  • Tue 06 Aug → Wed 14 Aug
  • Wed 07 Aug → Thu 15 Aug
  • Thu 08 Aug → Fri 16 Aug
  • Fri 09 Aug → Sat 17 Aug
  • Sat 10 Aug → Sun 18 Aug
  • Sun 11 Aug → Mon 19 Aug
  • Mon 12 Aug → Tue 20 Aug