Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 26 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]] 18:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


November 26, 2024

[edit]

November 25, 2024

[edit]

November 24, 2024

[edit]

November 23, 2024

[edit]

November 22, 2024

[edit]

November 21, 2024

[edit]

November 20, 2024

[edit]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

November 18, 2024

[edit]

November 17, 2024

[edit]

November 15, 2024

[edit]

November 14, 2024

[edit]

November 11, 2024

[edit]

November 10, 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:Blackspot_sargeant_(Abudefduf_sordidus)_and_Pacific_sailfin_tang_(Zebrasoma_velifer)_Moorea.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blackspot sargeant (Abudefduf sordidus) and Pacific sailfin tang (Zebrasoma velifer) --Charlesjsharp 22:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose the white fish is slighty blurred due to motion and the background is noisy --The Blue Rider 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur (per The Blue Rider). Surprisingly strong noise everywere, not only in the background. --Smial 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Manthey_Racing,_Professional_MotorSport_World_Expo_2024,_Cologne_(P1031136).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Headlamp of a Porsche Cayman GT4 Clubsport by Manthey Racing at Professional MotorSport World Expo 2024 --MB-one 09:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unclear subject --The Blue Rider 21:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
What's unclear about the subject? --MB-one 23:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
at first glance it is difficult to grasp what is being seen --The Blue Rider 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. I don't think it's easy to create a good photo under such lighting conditions and overall I can't recognize it as QI either, because DOF, cropping, reflections and CA are all borderline. But I think you can see quite clearly that this is a Porsche lamp? --Smial 11:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. The image is in my opinion good enough to identify the lamp. The important part is sharp enough.--Alexander-93 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Deutschherrenhaus_(Koblenz)_an_einem_Winterabend.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Das Deutschherrenhaus in Koblenz an einem Winterabend. By User:Rolf Kranz --XRay 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 17:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't it too blurry to be QI? --Екатерина Борисова 00:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is acceptable IMO but perspective is not (left side is leaning in heavily). --Plozessor 06:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Plozessor, I really don't see your problem with the perspective here. I know the building in Koblenz well and can confirm that I see it in reality exactly as it does in the picture. Do all photos have to be unnaturally distorted in order to be considered QI? Best regards -- Spurzem 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that's what I have learned here, yes. Right side of the castle is vertical but left side is leaning in, and windows are distorted. I would skew the upper left corner to make it appear vertical. --Plozessor 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, we could totally distort the image to make it look like many of the quality images we've seen here. -- Spurzem 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful, atmospheric image; very good -- Spurzem 14:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Białystok_2023_119_Izabella_Poniatowska_Painting.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait Painting of Elizabeth Branicka at Branicki Palace Museum --Scotch Mist 06:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Very slight crop on the left needed to get rid of the white line. ReneeWrites 10:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed - thanks for review, image slightly cropped. --Scotch Mist 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @ReneeWrites: - please re-review. --Scotch Mist 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Downsampled which is against the image guidelines. Will review again if the original is restored. --Tagooty 14:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment @Tagooty: - have reverted to previous image. --Scotch Mist 17:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    The band across the bottom detracts, I suggesting cropping to the picture frame. --Tagooty 04:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Tagooty: - image cropped. --Scotch Mist 10:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
     Info Moving image to CR, where it should be. Please do not reset to "Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good now, thanks. --Tagooty 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

File:German_Luftwaffe_Eurofighter_Typhoon_of_the_31st_Wing_at_Nellis_AFB,_Nevada_(USA),_9_March_2020_(200309-F-NX702-019).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination A German Luftwaffe pilot of Tactical Air Wing 31 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (USA), 9 March 2020. (by Cobatfor --Hotolmo22 17:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems it's not created by Wikimedia user --Екатерина Борисова 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not qualified for QI due not by a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_6e_-_Jardin_du_Luxembourg_-_Fontaine_Médicis_-_Statue_en_haut_à_droite.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paris 6e - Jardin du Luxembourg - Fontaine Médicis - Statue en haut à droite (by Romainbehar) --Sebring12Hrs 12:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The face of the sculpture is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very natural light and shadows, no details lost. Good and realistic imo. --ArildV 18:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks very good. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image for me. --Bgag 04:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. Light is not optimal but acceptable. --Plozessor 05:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Podgajci_Podravski_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Podgajci Podravski, Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia. --Tournasol7 05:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed or very unfortunate lighting for an object like this. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    After brightening it is better. -- Spurzem 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad weather, but not dark, and very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark as it is. I guess simple brightness stretching could improve it significantly. --Plozessor 05:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Has been brightened and is good now! --Plozessor 17:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:D-6-78-124-21_Reste_des_Gasthauses_und_Pforte,_Kirchstraße_9,_Donnersdorf.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Remaining foundations of a former inn in Donnersdorf --Plozessor 04:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose weird colours, low dof. --Kallerna 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF. Not in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are also CAs on the roofs, and this is noisy. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:West_wall_of_New_Jerusalem_Monastery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall of New Jerusalem Monastery --Vsatinet 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose no detail on dark parts --Kallerna 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but what details you can't see here? --Vsatinet 20:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    User:Kallerna - ? --Vsatinet 20:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too dark. --Milseburg 12:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too dark, also questionable composition with these three guys walking towards the camera. --Plozessor 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Bremerhaven,_Auswandererdenkmal_--_2024_--_2182.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Emigrants' memorial (Frank Varga, 1986) at Willy-Brandt-Platz, Bremerhaven, Bremen, Germany --XRay 05:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion the image is too dark, especially the statues. Please discuss -- Spurzem 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you. The motif is now brighter. --XRay 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a documentary picture the subject is too dark, not sharp enough and lacking detail. The original version, or a version where the statues are even darker or completely black, could probably pass as an artistic picture. (It would need perspective correction though, I guess the front corner of the base should be vertical.) --Plozessor 05:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. I have seen that the shot is not ideal. I can also accept that. But perhaps a few comments anyway. As a shot in the shade, the darkness is perfectly normal. I don't think it makes sense to correct the perspective, because on the one hand it is a three-point perspective and on the other hand it would look very unusual from the shooting position. As a silhouette and therefore more of an artistic expression, I don't think the detail makes sense, but that's a matter of taste. --XRay 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I also consider a complete PC to be counterproductive in such cases, but a rotation so that the vertical edge in the foreground is also displayed vertically is necessary. --Smial 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark. --Kallerna 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. Unfortunate lighting. The middle, third person (a child?) in the group of figures is hidden. Needs slight rotation CW. Not a completely bad photo, but when I add it all up, it's not enough for a QI. --Smial 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 17:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Pandava_Ghallu_12.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Écluse_de_la_Petite_France_à_Strasbourg_(2014).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strasbourg: La Petite France with the Ill lock. --JoachimKohler-HB 00:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Focus too much to the foreground --Michielverbeek 05:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Other opinions? --JoachimKohler-HB 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus adequate for the scene IMO. --Plozessor 05:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see it like Michielverbeek. -- Spurzem 15:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size print. Very nice colours. --Smial 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 17:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Henkerturm_Nürnberg_02.11.2024_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The executioner's tower (centre, built in 1320-25) with the executioner's bridge (right, reconstructed in 1954) and the former water tower (left, built in 1320-25) at the western tip of Nuremberg's Trödelmarktinsel.--Nilaxus 20:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. To me it looks oversaturated and oversharpend. --JoachimKohler-HB 10:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per JoachimKohler-HB. --Kallerna 07:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree that the colours look unnatural, and it looks as if too much “Clarity” has been added in post-procession. – Aristeas 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback so far. Any tips on what I can do better next time or whether I should make a correction? --Nilaxus 19:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nilaxus: I like your picture as it is, but other think that that colors are too intense and what Adobe calls "clarity" (local contrast) is too high. Thus you should lower saturation or color dynamics, and reduce clarity/structure/contrast during raw conversion to make it look more natural. --Plozessor 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated. Destructive noise reduction. Oversharpened. Despite the big file size (30MB) surprisingly strong JPG compression artifacts in the sky. What happened there? --Smial 12:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 17:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Herbstliche_Pappelallee_auf_dem_Damm_zur_Reichenau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Poplar avenue on the causeway to the island of Reichenau in Lake Constance --JoachimKohler-HB 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the far and middle ground (where cyclists are riding) are very blurred. But maybe it doesn't matter, because the front trees are ok. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 00:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, this is a matter of taste and intention. We can try to give a wide impression of the avenue and use a wide-angle perspective, or go for telephoto compression with a long focal length; we can try to get much of the avenue in focus or we can try to give a feeling of depth with limited depth of field. All of these goals are legitimate. Here the photographer has selected a long focal length (165 mm on FF) and hence telephoto compression. This more or less urges the photographer to choose a limited depth of field, too; and the photographer has already choosen it the depth of field almost as wide as possible (ƒ/10; more than ƒ/11 would certainly have introduced serious diffraction). I have often seen this approach even in photos from well-known photographers, so I see no need to argue with our photographer. – Aristeas 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Although I can understand that a low DoF is an artistic choice, I don't believe it's the best choice here. --Benjism89 18:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas --Smial 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 17:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Val_Sinestra._10-10-2024._(d.j.b.)_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Val Sinestra, waterfall over erosion field. --Famberhorst 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB is off. --Kallerna 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna, easy to fix though. --Plozessor 05:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Correction WB. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment still far too yellow. --Kallerna 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Plozessor 06:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me after the update; and also an interesting long exposure. --Radomianin 17:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 05:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 05:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Daher_TBM-910,_EBACE_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB190166).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daher TBM-910 on static display at EBACE 2019 --MB-one 13:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good image quality. --Indrajitdas 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for a quality image the whole aircraft shall be depicted; unfortunately, a part of the left winglet is cropped. --Mosbatho 17:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mosbatho, also unfavorable composition with the other, similar-looking aircrafts in the background so that the subject doesn't stand out, the legs of the workers behind the aircraft body etc.; also underexposed. --Plozessor 05:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop at left. --Sebring12Hrs 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:North_Ridge,_Korle-Klottey_(P1090870).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Headquarters of CalBank in North Ridge, Greater Accra --MB-one 13:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose bad crop --Kallerna 20:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kallerna: Could you please be more specific? --MB-one 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna, too much street and too little headquarters. --Plozessor 05:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment And it needs PC a bit at right. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Woman_with_hat_in_red_dress,_North_Beach_SF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman in a red dress in North Beach, San Francisco --Radomianin 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but in my opinion it's unclear what is this picture about. --Vsatinet 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your objection. To answer your question, the photo belongs to the genre of street photography. But please specify your reason for rejection, what technical issues does the photo have? Best regards, --Radomianin 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your point of view. As I understand it, you are referring to documentary photography, which often overlaps with street photography. Because street photography shows not only events, but also scenes, like in this case. However, if you look at the appropriate category, it is clear that the term street photography is broad and this shot falls into that category. As for the quality of the image, I am not sure that your objection can be accepted as a reason for rejection. This forum is only about the technical aspects of an image. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my poor English, but by "events" I meant something interesting, that is, "scenes" too. I refer on street photography as on something in which you can find a plot or point of view, not as any photo taken on street. Here I don't see a scene, but only women's back. It seems to me that this picture could have been interesting, for example, with a different crop - if the woman's figure in bright clothes contrasted with the faded colors of the street. As for technical aspects - in my opinion, frame construction and choice of plans is a very important technical aspect of photography (as Commons:Image guidelines says). But if criteria of QI are only right exposition, enough sharp, сorrect transfer of perspective and so on - let's it be so. Vsatinet 11:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
⦁ Thank you for expressing your opinion. Your English is good and I understand you, everything is fine. If we are talking about the composition of the image, I would like to give my view: As described in the retouching template on the file page, I deliberately toned down the saturation of the surroundings to give more emphasis to the woman in the eye-catching red dress. On the right there is a red wall and on the left a red car, whose dominance I wanted to reduce. I also cropped the picture according to the rule of thirds, so that the viewer's gaze coincides with hers. During our stay in San Francisco, I photographed many street scenes, such as street musicians or a shoeshine man. I think this spontaneous snapshot during our time in SF is my best, not only regarding composition and light, but also concerning non-identifiability, which for me is an important aspect of not violating her privacy in terms of ethical responsibility. Best regards, --Radomianin 12:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good, focus is good, composition is good for the intention. Not everybody will find this scene interesting, but IMO that is not relevant for QI. --Plozessor 14:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support on the lines of Plozessor. The quality is good, light and colours are very good, IMHO also the subject of the photo is clear (focus and depth of field clearly emphasize the woman) and the composition is fitting. I have often seen similar photos subsumed under “street photography”, but there is no need at all to quarrel over this classification: the “Quality image” badge is independent from the photographic genre. – Aristeas 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of this shot is good and I don't see any reason to reject this image. --Frank Schulenburg 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image, good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and well done photo. I wish it also could be FP though I doubt it is possible. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't have a problem with the composition, really, but I don't like that the image appears to have been downsized.--Peulle 07:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thank you for your objection, which I understand. However, the image was not reduced in size, but cropped to get the current composition. Best, --Radomianin 08:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me also --Jakubhal 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Vsatinet. --Kallerna 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oke voor mij.--Famberhorst 05:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_20e_-_Cimetière_du_Père_Lachaise_-_Tombe_de_Consuelo_Fould_-_La_Conscience_terrassant_le_Vice_et_l'Injustice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Conscience overcoming Vice and Injustice --Romainbehar 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose [Removed opposing vote per comment "new version looks OK" below --Plozessor 05:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)] CA's along the contour of the statues (especially the upper hand) --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Updated image removing aberration, also lightened globally --Romainbehar 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand what's going on here. I did not decline this image, I just made a comment, and I don't know who turned "Comment" into "Oppose". And anyway, I think the new version looks OK. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: Image cannot be moved to discussions unless there's a vote, so as this was moved to discussions, your comment was taken or misunderstood as an opposing vote I guess. Removed it now per your comment above. --Plozessor 05:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
 Comment These misunderstandings have arisen regularly since it became customary to discuss quality defects in the list above. In my opinion, this is the wrong place for this, as it makes the list unnecessarily long and confusing. Some QI candidates rot there for weeks until someone finally has the mercy to put a "decline", which would have been justified from the start. There is also no sensible automatic mechanism for discussing in the list, so "<br />" is tinkered with until the candidate ends up here in the discussion section after all, justified or misleading, where you then have to fiddle around again manually to make the section readable and to find out whether a comment, a "pro" or a "con" was meant. Decide in the list for a pro or a con, and discuss controversial cases in the discussion section, that's what it's for. --Smial 11:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 21:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. --Plozessor 09:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:S-charl,_Clemgia_zijrivier_van_de_Inn._12-10-2024._(d.j.b)_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination S-charl, rapids in the mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn.
    --Famberhorst 05:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think these are natural colors and the water looks like plastic due to intensive processing IMO. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong here. The water looks like it does due to (probably intentional) long exposure. --Plozessor 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Just want to clarify my objection. This picture looks more like a wallpaper generated by AI than a natural landscape. It seems ugly and unnatural to me. No offense to the photographer, of course. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and partly noisy. --Smial 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: The photo was taken with a long exposure time (8 sec.) on purpose. This was done with a gray filter. This will make the water look smooth. That was the intention. I did not sharpen the photo any more.--Famberhorst 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support With 8 s exposure time for a fast flowing alpine river the water looks as it looks like here. Colors are ok, too. --Zinnmann 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko 12:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours look fine and the noise is on a very low level. – Aristeas 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great Image Good quality --Tzim78 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the version already promoted. --Kallerna 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This is what you can expect from an intentionaly-long-exposed picture of a mountain river, OK for me. --Benjism89 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --PaestumPaestum 08:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 11 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 18 Nov → Tue 26 Nov
  • Tue 19 Nov → Wed 27 Nov
  • Wed 20 Nov → Thu 28 Nov
  • Thu 21 Nov → Fri 29 Nov
  • Fri 22 Nov → Sat 30 Nov
  • Sat 23 Nov → Sun 01 Dec
  • Sun 24 Nov → Mon 02 Dec
  • Mon 25 Nov → Tue 03 Dec
  • Tue 26 Nov → Wed 04 Dec