Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that 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]

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. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2021.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2021.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 06 2021 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]] 13:06, 6 December 2021 (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


December 6, 2021[edit]

December 5, 2021[edit]

December 4, 2021[edit]

December 3, 2021[edit]

December 2, 2021[edit]

December 1, 2021[edit]

November 30, 2021[edit]

November 29, 2021[edit]

November 28, 2021[edit]

November 27, 2021[edit]

November 26, 2021[edit]

November 24, 2021[edit]

November 23, 2021[edit]

November 20, 2021[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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Granary_in_Rouffach_02.jpg[edit]

Granary in Rouffach 02.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Absolutely not, look at the verticals on the outer parts. The curved horizontal lines might be real or – that might be a point – due to lens distortion. --Augustgeyler 11:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theatre,_celebrations_or_playing_instruments_(5).jpg[edit]

Theatre, celebrations or playing instruments (5).jpg

  • Nomination Theatre, celebrations or playing instruments (by Myousry6666) --Adoscam 10:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but low level of detail --Jakubhal 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, details in subjects and surrounding objects are clear --The night rainbow 07:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modelo_de_un_sauropodomorfo,_yacimiento_Árbol_de_Igea,_Igea,_La_Rioja,_España,_2021-08-31,_DD_28.jpg[edit]

Modelo de un sauropodomorfo, yacimiento Árbol de Igea, Igea, La Rioja, España, 2021-08-31, DD 28.jpg

  • Nomination Model of a Sauropodomorpha, archeological area of Árbol de Igea, Igea, La Rioja, Spain --Poco a poco 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, this composition is not working. The neck of the model is partially lined up with the horizon so that both are not distinguishable any more. --Augustgeyler 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could undestand this kind of argument at FPC regarding the composition, but not here. --Poco a poco 11:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see your point. But please take into account that my critic was not about aesthetics but about clarity and comprehensibility. Let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a funny photo, but more to the point, it's not at all difficult to distinguish the tail of the statue of a dinosaur from the mountains in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek 11:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SC_Austria_Lustenau_2018-04-24_(058).jpg[edit]

SC Wiener Neustadt vs. SC Austria Lustenau 2018-04-24 (058).jpg

  • Nomination Marcel Kanadi, footballplayer of SC Austria Lustenau. --Steindy 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Imehling 06:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the crop at the bottom is too tight. --Augustgeyler 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's an uncomfortable photo. I don't know if it was meant as a metaphor for the expression on the player's face, but it works as such. -- Ikan Kekek 11:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Austrian_Embassy_in_Belgrade_(Ambasada_Austrije_u_Beogradu).jpg[edit]

Austrian Embassy in Belgrade (Ambasada Austrije u Beogradu).jpg

  • Nomination Austrian Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia --PetarM 13:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the top crop is bad --Poco a poco 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    [reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What is that, a flag pole? Anyway, I don't think it's an unacceptable crop. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    [reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. --Sebring12Hrs 08:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco --Milseburg 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support It is not a perfect crop, but in a technical way good enough for QI. --Augustgeyler 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SC_Austria_Lustenau_2018-04-24_(061).jpg[edit]

SC Wiener Neustadt vs. SC Austria Lustenau 2018-04-24 (061).jpg

  • Nomination Marcel Kanadi, footballplayer of SC Austria Lustenau. --Steindy 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing blurry hand and background, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 17:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree! How big should the depth of field be for a portrait with a focal length of 480 mm? The face is super sharp and that is what matters. --Steindy 00:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is OK. --Augustgeyler 01:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do, too. -- Ikan Kekek 06:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the blurry hand is too distracting, it lowers the overall quality of the image. -- The night rainbow 07:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --The night rainbow 7:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Hide_from_each_other.jpg[edit]

Hide from each other.jpg

  • Nomination Hide from each other in Egypt (by Summering2018) --Adoscam 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute photo, but boy is too unsharp - higher f-value necessary --Michielverbeek 21:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a legal and well made photographic decision to show the "hidden" child out of focus and focusing on the other child looking for him. --Augustgeyler 22:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good use of DOF to tell a story. --King of Hearts 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amen -- Alvesgaspar 10:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others.--Peulle 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. Very good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad_Dürkheim_Kirchgasse_16_004_2021_10_10.jpg[edit]

Bad Dürkheim Kirchgasse 16 004 2021 10 10.jpg

  • Nomination Baptismal font of the protestant palace church in Bad Dürkheim --F. Riedelio 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Significant noise in the background. Font sharpness is borderline. Fixable? --Tagooty 07:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 06:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry: ✓ New version Noise and sharpness improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Tagooty 07:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 11:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per August. --Peulle 13:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not inclined to punish a photo for being too big. Is that a valid criterion for voting against a photo at QIC? At merely full-page, the resolution of the font is already quite a bit bigger than the full resolution in most other photos. I'd like to hear others' thought on this. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, sharpness lacking. --Palauenc05 22:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 06:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hatley_Park_National_Historic_Site,_British_Columbia_(2012)_-_12.JPG[edit]

Hatley Park National Historic Site, British Columbia (2012) - 12.JPG

  • Nomination Sculpture at Hatley Park National Historic Site, British Columbia --Another Believer 01:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think there is too much loss of detail due to intense compression. --Augustgeyler 03:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The lens is a little soft, the noise reduction may be a little overdone, but it's still within the acceptable range, and there are tiny remnants of CA that don't really bother. But overall the photo looks quite balanced and is perfectly usable for prints in A4 format or larger. I cannot find the typical JPG compression artefacts anywhere. --Smial 01:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Where are those compressions? --Palauenc05 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SC_Austria_Lustenau_2018-04-24_(046).jpg[edit]

SC Wiener Neustadt vs. SC Austria Lustenau 2018-04-24 (046).jpg

  • Nomination Dragan Marceta, footballplayer of SC Austria Lustenau. --Steindy 00:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose feet are cropped out --Draceane 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree. Let's hear other votes please. --Steindy 23:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 13:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A_small_boat.jpg[edit]

A small boat.jpg

  • Nomination A small boat pushed by fishermen to get out of the water (by Summering2018) --Adoscam 12:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It would be a great photo, but I don't understand why it is so blurred on the left side of the picture. I suspect that something happened during the image processing, because the shutter speed is too short for that. --Steindy 14:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like an artistic decision to emphasize motion in the moment. I dunno, looks a bit weird to me for a quality image, as it wouldn't have been originally in the picture. --Ximonic 04:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The "motion blurred" part makes it not meeting the criteria for a QI in my opinion. --Goran tek-en 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First I think the motion blurred boat in the background was fastly slipped into or out of the water at the same time and therefore became unsharp. Second, the boat in the background is the background – just adding some details to the scene like: There are some other boats slipped in at the same time. The main object is clear and the composition very good. --Augustgeyler 10:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Massive overprocessing. Furthermore, downscaled, although no technical reasons for this are actually apparent. --Smial 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good photo with an excellent composition. And, I believe, a promising candidate to FPC. I can't see the signs of massive overprocessing -- Alvesgaspar 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose far from QI per reasons above. --Milseburg 18:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to me per others, but is there evidence that this was downscaled? -- Ikan Kekek 20:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective impression in the photo indicates that the angle of view of the lens used was fully utilised, i.e. there was no significant cropping at the edges of the image. The image has 12 MPixels, the camera offers 24. I consider this to be downscaling. --Smial 01:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, I'll defer to you on this. I looked at the photo at 200% of full size and wasn't satisfied with it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 06:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:HAZRATBAL_SHRINE_01.JPG[edit]

HAZRATBAL SHRINE 01.JPG

  • Nomination Hazratbal Shrine in Srinagar city of Jammu and Kashmir, India. By User:Hardikmodi --Hulged 16:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit too dark. And please fix the verticals. --XRay 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A subject of very light material like this is IMHO better of a bit on the dark side to get all the structure from it. I can't see the vertical issue. Geocoding Commons:Image_guidelines#Location is recommended and very informative. --Goran tek-en 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be you have another opinion and you may promote the image, but IMO it isn't good to overrule an existing issue/request. I change your promotion to discuss. --XRay 18:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only underexposed but poorly framed, noisy and with little detail. The foreground is blurred. Barel distortion. Alvesgaspar 13:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed, a bit noisy / unsharp, needs perspective correction. --Trougnouf 13:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 13:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athanasius_of_Alexandria._Fresco_in_Church_of_the_Transfiguration_in_Kefalos._Kos,_Greece.jpg[edit]

Athanasius of Alexandria. Fresco in Church of the Transfiguration in Kefalos. Kos, Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Athanasius of Alexandria. Fresco in Church of the Transfiguration in Kefalos. Kos, Greece --Ввласенко 07:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks way too recent to be in PD, also no FOP in Greece. --C messier 20:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this is a FOP in Greece then submit a request for deletion. This has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. No deletion discussions are held here. --Steindy 00:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A photo with questionable copyright status can't be QI. --C messier 09:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because according to the first requirement "Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license.". If it depicts a work protected by copyright, and thus not available with a compatible CC license, the photo fails to comply with the first requirement. --C messier 22:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK but you don't have proof that it's recent, so I vote quality. Then if you have evidence to support your theory it will be deleted. Different if it was a known operation with a certain date of course. If you have evidence let me know and I will withdraw my vote of course. Greetings.--Commonists 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no proof that it isn't recent. Keep in mind precautionary principle is an official policy of Commons. --C messier 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are common commons rules, and in fact in the case it will be deleted! At the moment you have no evidence to say that it is too recent. If you are right, it will be deleted, otherwise my river flows smoothly.--Commonists 15:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ввласенко can you tell us the date of this work? Thank you. --Commonists 15:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Commonists The photo was taken September 6, 2021,17:57:52.The church looks like a very new building, the frescoes also look completely new. -- Ввласенко 09:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This photo, like the "File:Saint Basil the Great. Fresco in Church of the Transfiguration in Kefalos. Kos, Greece.jpg", is intended to be deleted. Does it make sense to talk about their quality? -- Ввласенко 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 22:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Κτίριο_Μπον_Μαρσέ,_Ηράκλειο_3345.jpg[edit]

Κτίριο Μπον Μαρσέ, Ηράκλειο 3345.jpg

  • Nomination The Bon Marche in Heraklion, Crete. --C messier 16:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft, but good for QI. --Tagooty 01:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft in my eyes and visible lens distortion. --Augustgeyler 02:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality imo. --Trougnouf 13:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Trougnouf 13:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kasimov._Church_of_the_Annunciation_P5220908_2350.jpg[edit]

Kasimov. Church of the Annunciation P5220908 2350.jpg

  • Nomination Kasimov. Church of the Annunciation --Alexxx1979 09:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 10:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this picture is oversaturated in my view. The colors just don't look natural. --Imehling 12:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colours look natural to me. I would crop the streetlight on the left and some of the mud road in front. --Tagooty 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The greens may be oversaturated. -- Ikan Kekek 07:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blue and green colors oversaturated. --Fischer.H 10:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like WB if off towards the greens, especially in the walls of the building -- Alvesgaspar 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --A.Savin 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose It is oversaturated, but just too much. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 22:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 13:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Oversaturated image, both blues and greens --Yeriho 14:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 16:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portland_Aerial_Tram,_Portland,_Oregon_(2013)_-_2.JPG[edit]

Portland Aerial Tram, Portland, Oregon (2013) - 2.JPG

  • Nomination Portland Aerial Tram, Portland, Oregon --Another Believer 03:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disagree, image is noisy, there are Symbol – Chromatische Aberration.svg chromatic aberrations, and part of the gondola is overexposed. --A.Savin 13:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background looks very compressed. Level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 11:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The main subject, the gondola, is well captured. --Tagooty 08s:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 22:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per A.Savin, part of the gondola is overexposed. --Trougnouf 13:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of smearing like from a cheap phone --Yeriho 14:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per August.--Peulle 19:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 16:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Sun 28 Nov → Mon 06 Dec
  • Mon 29 Nov → Tue 07 Dec
  • Tue 30 Nov → Wed 08 Dec
  • Wed 01 Dec → Thu 09 Dec
  • Thu 02 Dec → Fri 10 Dec
  • Fri 03 Dec → Sat 11 Dec
  • Sat 04 Dec → Sun 12 Dec
  • Sun 05 Dec → Mon 13 Dec
  • Mon 06 Dec → Tue 14 Dec