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 July 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 July 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 July 20 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]] 20:04, 20 July 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).


July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 2024

[edit]

July 17, 2024

[edit]

July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 14, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 11, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 08, 2024

[edit]

July 07, 2024

[edit]

July 06, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

July 04, 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:Batterij_8,_Drimmelen_voorkant.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Municipal monument and house at Batterij 8 in Drimmelen --ReneeWrites 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Low level of detail --Poco a poco 16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't understand what's wrong with this image. Level of detail is nornal IMO --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CAs at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Overall very low level of detail to to strong processing and / or compression. Contrasty parts show compression artifacts. Additionally chromatic aberration at the darker parts.
  •  Oppose I am sorry, that was me. So repeating my vote and signing here. --Augustgeyler 19:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correct exposure and good composition. But again a tough battle between noise reduction, sharpening and JPG compression. I once used a Samsung compact camera myself, which was even worse in this regard, but I would have thought after more than 15 years of technical advancement, a little more progress would have been possible. Sony or Apple phones, for example, and perhaps others, even correct the CA automatically these days... --Smial 11:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_146.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TC at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that it is already a QI. In my opinion the the strong yellow component should be reduced. In addition, the two men appear slightly overexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightness tweaked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_149.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the yellow-green grass and the two scalped men. In addition, the hood is very dark on the right. Please discuss whether the photo is already a QI or whether it still needs to be worked on. -- Spurzem 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightnesses tweaked, and cropped to minimise the background men, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Neuschwanstein_(57_mm).jpg

[edit]

✓ Done thank you --AuHaidhausen 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Union_Station_Toronto_August_2017_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Union Station, Toronto. --ArildV 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part is unsharp. And the sideways slipped angle is not good. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for reviews. I uploaded a entirely new development.--ArildV 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Knowsley_Safari_Park_2006_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kobus leche in Knowsley Safari Park --Mike Peel 09:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Some chroma noise in the background. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Vamlingbo_kyrka_July_2024_07.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination View towards Vamlingbo church from the lychgate. --ArildV 06:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sharp and balanced shot but the top crop is to tight and spoils the composition. --Augustgeyler 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't have a problem with the top crop of the picture (if that's what you meant Augustgeyler) but I have one with the crop of the stained glass created by the photographer's position (should have walked one step forward) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • I generally don't use zoom lenses for architecture and landscape (just an explanation) so if I had taken a step forward the vault would have disappeared completely. For me the image works anyway, the image captures the feeling of walking through the lychgate and see the church through the vault. ArildV --ArildV 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Hey @ArildV: , I agree with you. I do like your decission to integrate the gate into your composition. It's great. I just think it is cropped too tight, so there should be a little more of the gate visible at the top to look as intentional as it was. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Tight at top, but far enough for QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Though I understand the photographer's intention, the picture is a failure. It's a shame that things like that happen, but that doesn't mean that the result should be judged as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support per George. --Smial 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Kopfweide_bei_Klietznick_02.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination old pollard willow on the dike --Georgfotoart 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Nice wide angle composition. But unfortunately I can not find anything in focus here. --Augustgeyler 00:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Revised, please rate --Georgfotoart 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok for me (now). --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Widok_z_Góry_św._Anny,_Nowa_Ruda,_8_lipca_2024_KsP_2113.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Nowa Ruda, Góra św. Anny, Wzgórza WłodzickieJa, właściciel praw autorskich do tego dzieła, udostępniam je na poniższej licencji --KrzysztofPoplawski 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Image tilts to the left (cut off something at the bottom?) --Georgfotoart 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment it's a wide angle view and I don't want to straighten it either in relation to the elements in the lower right corner tilted to the right or in relation to the elements on the left tilted to the left, because it will completely destroy the composition. If for this reason it does not pass QI, I prefer it to remain in this composition. --KrzysztofPoplawski 08:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question Ok, can anyone else see this picture? --Georgfotoart 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Very high quality, slightly tilted counter-clockwise though. I don't see how fixing the tilt would alter the composition in a significant way, let alone ruin it. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I would accept the spherical projection if it would be uniform but somehow it is not. As others noted, it seems tilted in addition to the lens effect. --Plozessor 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:10_Алматинский_ботанический_сад.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Alley with wooden arches in Almaty botanical garden. Bostandyk District, Almaty, Kazakhstan. By User:Marat Rysbekov --Красный 23:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Could you please check the WB here? --Augustgeyler 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose  Not done --Augustgeyler 00:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support I don't think there was any need to do anything at all,because WB is absolutely normal here (IMO). Let's hear what other users have to say about it. --Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Colors are somehow off. But more important, the arches are rectangular in reality, as can be seen from other pictures. The distortion should be corrected in raw conversion or post-processing. --Plozessor 17:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Praha_Nove_Mesto_Florentinum_fontana.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Fountain in Florentinum, Prague, Czechia --JiriMatejicek 11:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Perspective errors should be corrected. --Ermell 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:At_Montevideo_2023_215.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Leandro Gómez Monument, Montevideo --Mike Peel 06:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sharpness and exposure are very good. But unfortunately due to the angle, the inscription is very hard to read, which is a defect IMO. Maybe it's possible to fix it in post? 🤞 --MB-one 14:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done I've tweaked it to try to make the text clearer, has that helped? Also moving this to discuss since it was supported before your comment. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_бюст_неизвестной_женшины_03.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Bust of unknown woman, Lower Park of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose This has way too many compression artifacts for the camera and JPG quality factor. Was it accidentally saved in low quality during processing or something? --Plozessor 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment No, I never do so with pictures taken by this camera. I tried to make this shot look a bit better before nominating and maybe something went wrong. You can compare by looking at the first version uploaded year ago. --Екатерина Борисова 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The original version has compression artifacts too. Did you take the JPG directly from the camera? --Plozessor 11:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Then probably the camera used too strong JPG compression. You should always take the RAW file from the camera and convert it yourself. --Plozessor 04:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment My usual JPG picture without any processing is about 7 ot 8 Mb, so I don't think that my camera is so bad)) -- Екатерина Борисова 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • You have sharpened the noise and the compression artifacts. Unsuitable sharpening algorithm. -- Smial 11:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Yes, due to intense processing there are compression artifacts resulting in  Level of detail too low as well. --Augustgeyler 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks to everybody for useful comments. This is surely not my best photo and I won't be offended if it's declined. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The original upload was of a much higher quality. A similar thing happened with another nominee (the Psyche statue) where the sharpened version ends up destroying a lot of detail. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I can revert this photo to the previous version - not for the sake of QI status, but for the sake of quality itself. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Monument_aux_malgré-nous_(Turckheim).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Monument to "malgré-nous" in Turckheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment the memorial plaque is barely legible, otherwise good --Georgfotoart 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question Any other opinions? --Georgfotoart 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment It is tilted ccw. --August (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose until perspective is fixed. Currently it's tilted. --Plozessor 11:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Not seeing how this is tilted. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment approx. 0.5° to the left (clear at 150% visibility, then the memorial plaque is also easy to read) --Georgfotoart 19:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Grand_Ducal_Palace_in_Luxembourg_City_01.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Grand Ducal Palace in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too much distortion here due to intense perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 07:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak  Support. I've seen worse candidates here in terms of perspective correction. Exposure a little too much, otherwise very carefully processed. --Smial 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Top of the towers are stretched out, but this is fixable. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Córdoba_-_Santa_Marina_de_Aguas_Santas.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Córdoba (Andalusia, Spain) - Façade of the church of Santa Marina de Aguas Santas --Benjism89 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Promotion
    •  Oppose Nice image but building look too distorted. --Augustgeyler 07:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 19:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. The church is unnaturally hanging to the left. -- Spurzem 08:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Please check the verticals, there are straight. This is what you can see from this point of view. --Sebring12Hrs 16:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Sebring12Hrs: The church is tipping backwards. I wouldn't have the courage to go in. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support As far as I can judge from professional stock photos, this church's left wall is leaning in reality, and the picture is realistic. --Plozessor 04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Weizenfeld_--_2024_--_4462.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a wheat field in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I like this image, but I have to oppose. This is not a reproduction but claims to be art itself. QIC is not prepared to promote direct artwork if not part of a photographic reproduction of an existing piece of art. I can just judge this nomination with all QIC rules we usually check. The result: The image is unsharp, looks very blurred, lacks detail, is unable to even show it's proclaimed subject and has a non visible DoF. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Wikimedia should set up a section for blurry artworks. I could very well imagine the photo presented here as a large picture, for example in the waiting room of a doctor's office. But for me it is not a quality image that should show me an object, a landscape or a person clearly and in an appealing way. -- Spurzem 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Выборг,_Батарейная_гора_сверху.jpg

    [edit]

    •  Comment I don't think that straightening the perspective with the 45 degrees angle of view can be reasonable. Красный 20:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I agree, it's an aerial image. However, at least the verticals lines in the middle of the image should be vertical - which they are not here. With the perspective fixed (verticals ok in the middle, and both edges leaning equally), I would support it. --Plozessor 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ok, can anyone else see this picture? --Georgfotoart 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Turned to discussion --Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral The lens of this camera seams to be not very good. Sharpness is degreasing to the outer parts rapidly. The shot looks oriented correctly and PC from that angle would not be appropriate. Overall it looks OK but I would not have nominated it for QI. --Augustgeyler 09:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:BMW_G06_M60i_IMG_9119.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination BMW X6 M60i in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 12:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Comment Very noisy. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for the review, I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 16:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Much butter --MB-one 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think there is still too much chroma noise. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Vista_panoramica_dalla_fortezza_di_Bertinoro_-_Emilia-Romagna_-_GT_02-_2024-07-01.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Panoramic view from Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. --Terragio67 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Incorrect use of the "Panorama" template but otherwise a great picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Huge size, but sky is noisy and posterized. --Milseburg 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think some minor posterisation is acceptable for a 222 MP image. --Plozessor 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
     Comment A high resolution should not be a reason for a less strict evaluation. Otherwise, upscaling could become a valid way to fix problems. --Milseburg (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Saint_Cyrice_church_of_Broquies_05.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Round window of the Saint Cyrice church of Broquies, Aveyron, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Sorry to oppose. As there is no reference to the perspective here it looks distorted. A QI of the rosette could be taken from a much higher point of view (like another tower or a drone) or should include some perspective reference to make it easy to understand that this is a perspective shot from down below. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains_(Katon-Karagay).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. WB off. Too litle sky. --Milseburg 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Exactly per Milseburg. --Plozessor 06:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Yes, WB off here. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment WB did improve. But with better WB some oversaturation gets visible. --Augustgeyler 09:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. --Milseburg 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    Better now. --Milseburg 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Not that bad but the color looks somehow unnatural. --Plozessor 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support now. Still a little too high color saturation, at least for the viewing habits of an average Central European, but a very big improvement. A really good composition of an impressive landscape. --Smial 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose The image looks over-contrasted and over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:VLine_VLocity_-1209_'Michalle_Payne'_arriving_at_Platform_4_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station,_Sunshine.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination VLine VLocity -1209 'Michalle Payne' arriving at Platform 4 at Sunshine Railway Station, Sunshine --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
     Question @Takerlamar: So you are the person who made this image, loaded it to Flickr and afterwards to Commons, right? --Augustgeyler 06:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Takerlamar: A "commoner" is a Wikimedia Commons user, and a prerequisite for QI is that the picture was taken by such. We could not find any indication that the owner of the Flickr account is you. If you are Philip Mallis, you should use the "User" template in the description's "author" statement, making it clear that Philip Mallis is user Takerlamar (author=[[User:Takerlamar|Philip Mallis]]). --Plozessor 06:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Takerlamar: Thanks for clarifying. So you are Philip Mallis? If so, you should point this out on your images or at least at your users page. Because the guidelines for Quality Images are saying it is mandatory that images are made by Users of Wikimedia Commons (so called Commoners). So if nobody can see and / or proof that at your nominations must be declined. --Augustgeyler 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thanks, I have just made the requested change from Plozessor on both image pages. I hope that resolves it. Takerlamar 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support  Thank you. Good quality. --Augustgeyler 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Comeng_train_operating_a_service_to_Flinders_Street_Station_arriving_at_Platform_1_at_Hawksburn_Station,_South_Yarra_(53187079413).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Comeng train 562M operating a service to Flinders Street arriving at Hawksburn Station, South Yarra, Melbourne, Australia. --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question As with the other images, you created this image, uploaded it to Flickr and to Commons, right? --Georgfotoart 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose We can not proof the author is a commoner. --Augustgeyler 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure what a "commoner" is, but yes I am the person who created it, uploaded it to Flickr and then to Commons. Takerlamar 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Takerlamar: So you are Philip Mallis? If so, you should point this out on your images or at least at your users page. Because the guidelines for Quality Images are saying it is mandatory that images are made by Users of Wikimedia Commons (so called Commoners). So if nobody can see and / or proof that at your nominations must be declined. --August (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Yes, I have just made the requested change from Plozessor on both image pages. I hope that resolves it. Takerlamar 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Siemens_train_772M_departing_Platform_2_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station_running_a_Down_service_to_Sunbury.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Siemens train 772M departing Platform 2 at Sunshine Railway Station running a Down service to Sunbury, Melbourne, Australia --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I couldn't find out if the author is a Commoner. User:Takerlamar was uploading it. The source is Flickr and the author is Philip Mallis. So I can't say that Philip Mallis is a Commoner. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Changing to neutral to give Takerlamar some more time to respond. --Augustgeyler 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, the author is apparently not a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Takerlamar: If you want to prevent this image to be declined, please add some information about your status as author of this image. You need to point out / proof that User:Takerlamar is the same person as Philipp Malis in Flickr. --Augustgeyler 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Augustgeyler: I've made the author change on the image page for this one as well. Takerlamar 23:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. Thanks for your perseverance. --MB-one 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Hohemarkenbusch,_Baumstamm_--_2024_--_4411.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Maybe I don't understand enough about art, maybe even nothing at all. But I would like to ask you to discuss whether this photo based on a tree trunk is a quality image. -- Spurzem 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I don't understand too. --Sebring12Hrs 05:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Because photographic art and creativity are also part of photography. Wikimedia Commons is a media archive and includes a variety of genres. --XRay 09:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Because the technical quality (this is what we judge here on this page) of this artistic photo is very high. Believe me, try experimenting yourself for a bit, you will see what I mean. --Kritzolina 10:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hello Kritzolina, maybe I should also present my often mentioned attempt to photograph the non-existent black cat in the dark basement without light. Perhaps the result would also be considered great art. ;-) Best regards and please no offense -- Spurzem 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Photographing non-existing cats in dark basements ist not a well established photography technique. It it were, you might get a quality image out of it. And I don't take offense here, but other people who do good work in those fields of photography you are not comfortable with, might. The comparison is offensive in nature, as it compares doing really stupidand nonsensical things with photography that requires skills, technical expertise and inspiration. Please don't take offense for me pointing this out. --Kritzolina 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support As we already discussed few months ago, IMO the only problem with artistic images like this is the lack of objective criteria. So we can only judge it subjectively - and this picture pleases my sense of aesthetics. --Plozessor 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment It looks to me like someone has a very unclear sight and is in a forest with sunlight shining through --PantheraLeo1359531 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Shouldn't we be focusing on the technical quality instead of whether this is art or not? --Zzzs 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Technical quality is one aspect, composition and image design are another. And the technical quality alone cannot be assessed across the board, because, for example, a sharp image can have good technical quality, but so can a blurred one. In my opinion, a good depiction of motion blur, for example, is also a good technical quality. With some images, however, technical quality is not the main focus, other reasons prevail. It is therefore not easy to evaluate a picture using simple criteria. --XRay 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Blurry. --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I must reject this nomination, despite my personal admiration for the image. While I could imagine it as delightful wall art in my living room, this cannot influence our decision. Our role is to ensure nominations meet QIC standards, which do not include subjective artistic value unless the work is a photographic reproduction of existing art. Therefore, I limit my assessment strictly to these parameters: The image is well-exposed, appears to have correct white balance, meets the requirements for resolution and noise, and does not seem to be over-processed. However, it exhibits the flaw of motion blur. The subject mentioned in the nomination is not correctly focused, nor can it be recognized due to the motion blur, along with the subject itself. In my view, these fundamental flaws inevitably mean that this image cannot be a Quality Image.
      A side note: XRay could potentially have this image recognised under QIC rules by printing, framing, and re-photographing it according to reproduction standards, then stating in the description that it is a reproduction of an artwork by XRay. We would then evaluate the quality of this reproduction in our process.--Augustgeyler 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • A cite from the guidelines: Motion blur should have a purpose, most often to emphasize motion. This blurring is used here to achieve the effect. In my opinion, this fulfills our set of rules. And, by the way, the rules say “should”, not “must”. --XRay 04:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • What object is in motion here that needs to be vissiualised by intentionally using motion bluer? --Augustgeyler 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    • The camera. ;-) --XRay 10:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose It doesn't capture the subject well, and it lacks artistic context - just claiming that it's an 'art photo' doesn't explain why or how, so it ends up just being a photo that looks like it was accidentally taken. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • What do you think an artistic context should look like? BTW: The picture was anything but accidental. The tree trunk with the appropriate structure was chosen appropriately and the design resulted from the structure of the surface. --XRay 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I really like this picture and it stands out from the series. Great colours, dynamic, also how the eye is led through the diagonal composition and how the brightness distribution looks like a natural vignette. I also see a certain development, because this picture tells a story and evokes emotions. But the picture can't be a QI because it doesn't meet some very central criteria here. QIC is simply the wrong place for such a photo. (Which also applies, for example, to those awful, freely interpreted coats of arms SVGs that look like they've been taken from comics, but that's another topic). I think the argument that these images (or series of images) are high-quality examples of a certain photographic technique is far-fetched, because then we can soon expect to see unnecessarily(!) noisy images or those with the wrong focus being presented as QI for the educational presentation of image noise and wrong camera settings. --Smial 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per Smial. Very useful explanation (personally, I like the picture by itself). -- Екатерина Борисова 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Apogónido_(Ostorhinchus_compressus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_185.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Ochre-striped cardinalfish (Ostorhinchus compressus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose I think it lacks sharpness, it's a bit noisy. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I indeed believe that there is enough level of detail here for an underwater QI. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Indeed good enough for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support as per Plozessor. --Radomianin 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The head is dark and noisy, not enough sharpness sorry El Golli Mohamed 12:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've reduced the noise of the head. I will though not brighten it because it's characteristic of this species as you can see in the category. You'll agree that exceptionally that's not my fault. --Poco a poco 18:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good enough considering the resolution and circumstances the photo was taken in. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Fri 12 Jul → Sat 20 Jul
    • Sat 13 Jul → Sun 21 Jul
    • Sun 14 Jul → Mon 22 Jul
    • Mon 15 Jul → Tue 23 Jul
    • Tue 16 Jul → Wed 24 Jul
    • Wed 17 Jul → Thu 25 Jul
    • Thu 18 Jul → Fri 26 Jul
    • Fri 19 Jul → Sat 27 Jul
    • Sat 20 Jul → Sun 28 Jul