Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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 January 2025.
  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 January 2025.
  • 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 January 13 2025 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]] 04:05, 13 January 2025 (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).


January 13, 2025

[edit]

January 12, 2025

[edit]

January 11, 2025

[edit]

January 10, 2025

[edit]

January 9, 2025

[edit]

January 8, 2025

[edit]

January 7, 2025

[edit]

January 6, 2025

[edit]

January 5, 2025

[edit]

January 4, 2025

[edit]

January 3, 2025

[edit]

January 2, 2025

[edit]

January 1, 2025

[edit]

December 31, 2024

[edit]

December 30, 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:Moscow,_Elektrozavodskaya_Street,_MELZ_factory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow Electric Lamp Plant (by Thesupermat2) --FBilula 12:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry to overrule, but not taken by a Commons user. --Plozessor 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being alert, not a QI then, rules are rules. --Poco a poco 10:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Szlak_na_Łopień_w_Beskidzie_Wyspowym,_20250106_0956_6961.jpg

[edit]

File:Interno_delle_chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_Ausiliatrice_-_Torino.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interno delle chiesa di Santa Maria Ausiliatrice - Torino.jpg --TorinoDoc 11:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Beautiful composition but too dark, sorry. --Olivier LPB 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment increased brightness--TorinoDoc 14:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Brightness is ok for me (now), but  Question what are those white spots in the shadows (for example on the benches)? Looks like this would be a scan of a dusty paper photo. --Plozessor 08:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imo it's just very noisy due to high iso and shadows show it more, though noise is seen throughout the hole scene. Not too dark for me, but the centre could be a little brighter, though it's obvious in reality it was a very dark place. --Горбунова М.С. 09:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This doesn't look like sensor noise to me. Sensor dust probably. --Plozessor 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment fully reworked,thank you --TorinoDoc 16:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Marktplatz_3,_inner_courtyard,_Düsseldorf.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marktplatz 3, inner courtyard, work by Leo Müsch, formerly on the right or left of the portal of the Old Art Hall. Düsseldorf, Germany --Reda Kerbouche 22:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Low level of details. --ArildV 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think for a phone picture it is as good as can be, maybe with a little tilt.--Горбунова М.С. 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed with low level of details --Jakubhal 15:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Somehow overprocessed smartphone picture but IMO still meeting the guidelines. --Plozessor 08:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 10:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:06448_DEU_Berlin_Tor_zum_Prenzlauer_Berg_V-P.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture 'Gateway to Prenzlauer Berg' --Virtual-Pano 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not sharp and is full of green+blue artefacts on the borders of the sculpture. Looks ok if you don't zoom in. --Горбунова М.С. 09:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't see significant fringes, but still, this picture has a clear subject at fixed distance, so that subject should be sharp. But it isn't. --Plozessor 09:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:SIAE_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE0843).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Embraer KC-390 passing over some chalets at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crop: 95 % of the image is just sky. --Kallerna 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Plane shouldn't be in the dead centre of a photo, would work if you crop it. --Горбунова М.С. 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done new crop. Thanks for the reviews --MB-one 10:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 09:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The plane is too dark. -- Spurzem 10:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:OutDoor_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A0239).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert at OutDoor 2018 --MB-one 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Bad crop. --Kallerna 09:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Please crop out the air on the right (with something sticking out in frame), it will look much better.
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_3_rue_Paul-Louis-Courier_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - 17th-century mansion at 3 Paul-Louis-Courier street --Benjism89 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The brightness on the left is clamped and the perspective correction looks a bit exaggerated to me --PantheraLeo1359531 17:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective overcorrected (leaning out), too strong distortion due taken from a low position at small distance, facade blown out on left side, blue tint, underexposed (due that small sunny spot on the left), not too sharp overall. Could probably still be rescued with better raw conversion and some retouching. --Plozessor 07:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm ok with the perspective if further shot was not realistic to be done, but left part is overexposed so much details are completely missing. --Горбунова М.С. 08:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting and unnatural perspective -- Spurzem 12:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've just uploaded a new version, where the overexposed building on the left is cropped out (not the subject of this picture), perspective is slightly corrected (the drain pipe on the right is still not vertical, but everything around is vertical so I assume this pipe is not vertical in reality) and WB is fixed. I can't do any better with the overexposure on the left (already highly corrected from the RAW), maybe I'll try to make a better shot some other day, but lighting will never be perfect as this building is facing North. --Benjism89 13:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Claas_Axion_820_&_Krone_BiG_X_600,_Grünfutterernte_in_Vorpommern_(2017).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Krone BiG X 600 forage harvester with Claas Axion 820 harvesting green forage in Western Pomerania, Germany --JoachimKohler-HB 01:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sides are not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • It‘s the price to show the movement (rotating wheels). Other opinions? --JoachimKohler-HB 09:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Adequate combination of sharpness and effect IMO. --Plozessor 06:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Till.niermann 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Photo would win from cutting a little bit of air from the right as objects are moving to the left where it's pretty tight. --Горбунова М.С. 08:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Gravestone_of_the_Scharpff_Family.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This gravestone honors a couple, likely the Scharpff family. --Reda Kerbouche 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 12:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a smartphone picture, there are some NR artifacts but IMO it's still ok and - what QI mostly is about - the photographer did nothing wrong. Subject is sharp, background is not, light is good, composition is good. --Plozessor 06:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd request right side to be cut symmetrical to the left, there's another gravestone cut through and overall it would look better imo. --Горбунова М.С. 08:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Горбунова М.С.: corrected. --Reda Kerbouche 11:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Remarkable detail quality for a smartphone photo. --Tuxyso 14:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tuxyso 14:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-12-31_51._Erfurter_Silvesterlauf_2024_STP_4479.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Impressions of the 51st Erfurt Silvesterlauf 2024 --Stepro 02:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the face is cut and a big part of the photo is disturbing at the right. --Olivier LPB 09:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I can understand the second part, but I can't leave the first part as it is. The face is by no means cut off, but shown in full with plenty of space around it. Only the tips of the hair are cut off, which are not relevant for a photo of the face. --Stepro 09:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO photographs of children shouldn't be allowed at Commons. --XRay 08:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Then thousands of photos on Commons will have to be deleted. Is this view justified by anything? --Stepro 21:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Eine grundsätzliche Regel gibt es offenbar nicht, sonst gäbe es keine Kategorie "Photographs of Children". Wenn ich die Bildbeschreibung richtig verstehe, zeigt das Bild aber nicht irgendeine Zuschauerin (wie der Titel vermuten lässt), sondern die Siegerin eines Kinderlaufs? Dann würde es vermutlich unter die Ausnahme für Zeitgeschichte fallen und erlaubt sein. --Plozessor 04:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Das ist zum einen richtig, sie hat eine medial rezipierte Sportveranstaltung in ihrer Alterklasse gewonnen. Zum anderen haben alle Teilnehmer (bzw. bei Minderjährigen deren Eltern) bei der Anmeldung zugestimmt, dass die Fotos veröffentlicht werden dürfen. Von absolut allen > 1.000 Teilnehmern egal welchen Alters sind Fotos öffentlich im Netz zu finden (nicht von mir). --Stepro 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ja, das ist immer so eine Sache mit Kinderfotos aus Deutschland, aber wenn man bedenkt, wie viele Fotos (mit oder ohne ausdrücklicher Erlaubnis) von Vereinen, öffentlichen Veranstaltungen, Familienmitgliedern ins Netz abgeladen werden, tja. Selbst wenn es klare Regeln gäbe, so wäre das nicht aufzuhalten (vor allem bei dem Bedürfnis Mancher, jeden noch so kleinen Mist online kundzutun) --PantheraLeo1359531 17:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Die Lokalzeitungen pusten ja auch gerne Kinderfotos (Gruppenfotos, etc.) ins Netz, die dann de facto dauerhaft dort sind (selbst bei Bezahlschranke oder zeitlicher Begrenzung) --PantheraLeo1359531 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Fotos von Veranstaltungen sind ja auch grundsätzlich ok, auch wenn da Leute drauf sind - ne Gruppe, die bei ner Faschingsveranstaltung an nem Tisch sitzt und lacht, dürfte kein Problem sein. Aber ein Foto, das ausschließlich das Gesicht einer einzelnen Person ohne Kontext zeigt, wo man noch nicht mal die Veranstaltung im Hintergrund erkennen kann, geht vermutlich nicht als 'Foto der Veranstaltung' durch. (Außer, es zeigt einen 'prominenten' Teilnehmer, so wie hier eine der Siegerinnen.) --Plozessor 17:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ja, das sehe ich ähnlich --PantheraLeo1359531 14:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp image, that cut is allowed in photography, nice composition and everything else is ok for street photography in the crowd. Whether children photos are allowed or not is not up to me to decide. --Горбунова М.С. 07:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilique_du_Sacré-Cœur_de_Montmartre_-_Paris_-_GT-02_-_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Three points perspective of the Basilic of the Sacred Heart of Montmatre, Paris. --Terragio67 00:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry but to me, this perspective isn't realistic, the building is tilted. It seems it's falling. --Sebring12Hrs 01:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion, this image is based on the union of 12 photos and it is very tiring to correct any errors. So I would kindly need further opinions before intervening on the geometry of the composition. --Terragio67 06:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I understand ;) --Sebring12Hrs 10:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The domes are unnaturally narrow. Perhaps this can be corrected. -- Spurzem 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Replyː Thanks, maybe you mean that they should be made more like a two-point perspective? Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs and @Spurzem Doneː Verticals corrected, thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not about creating the verticals. The two domes are unnaturally distorted, especially the left one. I don't know if it can be corrected; I haven't tried. -- Spurzem 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it looks squished in the horizontal, seeming too narrow. --Горбунова М.С. 07:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Lidzbark_Warmiński_2023_37_Collegiate_Church_Rectory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Collegiate Church Parish Rectory, 4 Church Square --Scotch Mist 06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top crop is too tight --Poco a poco 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Added implicit oppose. --Plozessor 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for review but 'tightness' on top crop not significant issue here imho. Perhaps we can have another review with promote or oppose to take to discussion? --Scotch Mist 15:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. Crop is tight but IMO not too tight. --Plozessor 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree it needs more air on top, is it an original crop or you could recrop it? Too much road for so little sky above the subject.
  •  Oppose per Poco a Poco. The crop is too tight for such a building IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is more sky than road in this photo and the cross at the top of the steeple is barely visible so the image appears appropriately balanced as is imho. --Scotch Mist 17:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Intérieur_de_l'église_Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola_de_Rome.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior bacilica --Wilfredor 01:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 03:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I can clean the noise, however, its information, denoise is a destructive edition. Its big image in a dark condition shoot --Wilfredor 02:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still a great shot. I wouldn't apply more classic NR because, as said, it would remove details. You could try CameraRaw's AI denoise if you haven't done so though. --Plozessor 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks like shadows were worked on too much, great from afar, but lacks any sharpness when zoomed in. --Горбунова М.С. 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Basilique_Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré,_Quebéc,_Canada_016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Basilica of Sainte-Anne --Wilfredor 01:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Great picture, but unfortunately with a stitching problem (hard transition between different focal planes above the right chandelier). --Plozessor 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint_Amans_du_Fort_church_in_Aubin_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Amans du Fort church in Aubin, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 14:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The building is titled to its right side, could you fix the perspective.--Reda Kerbouche 14:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}
 Comment I think it's very minor. --Sebring12Hrs 21:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Tilt is within acceptable limits IMO, not to forget that medieval buildings are usually not absolutely straight. Quality is very good otherwise. --Plozessor 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
 Comment And with how gates at the front are tilted to the other side it's probably impossible to change correctly? --Горбунова М.С. 08:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is OK for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to my previous  Comment the building still titled sorry, I am open to change my vote when it's corrected.--Reda Kerbouche 12:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Reda Kerbouche 12:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_1er_-_Musée_du_Louvre_-_Exposition_Le_trésor_de_Notre-Dame_de_Paris_-_La_messe_du_chanoine_de_La_Porte_(Jean_Jouvenet).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of a mass --Romainbehar 16:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be a bit grainy/noisy, especially on the frame, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Detail is ok but it has uneven brightness (top is much brighter than bottom). Should apply a linear gradient mask for brightness during raw conversion. --Plozessor 05:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The top of the subject is not good (burnt) due to the light, it would be desirable to fix mainly on the upper part of the frame. As far as painting goes, IMHO this nomination is definitely GQ. --Terragio67 18:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is much too bright in places and probably cannot be improved. -- Spurzem 15:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good quality considering varied lighting at object location. --Scotch Mist 09:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Agree that it's too grainy and not sharp on the frame, the painting itself looks better and zoomed out it's quite ok, so a hard decision.--Горбунова М.С. 08:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support for me Good quality.--Reda Kerbouche 12:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Reda Kerbouche 12:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Almkopfbahn-Bergstation-2023.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Almkopfbahn, which leads from Bichlbach to the mountain station below the Alpkopf (Lechtal Alps) --Tuxyso 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry - but station is partially hidden by disturbing trees. --PtrQs 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imho it is a good framing and does not disturb --Tuxyso 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added implicit votes for the comments above. --Plozessor 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I changed to comment, because it is my own photo. --Tuxyso 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry! --Plozessor 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the framing per Tuxyso. Personally I'd change the curve a bit to brighten the shadows and mid-tones, but it's still acceptable as is. --Plozessor 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is amazing and the subject is clearly visible. --Sebring12Hrs 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • thank Nikon for the Z 70-200 f2.8 lens :-) —Tuxyso 18:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support High quality and no problem with composition/framing imo.--ArildV 07:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per PtrQs, main subject is good, but the branches are too large and disturbing and are hiding a bit of the building. --Milseburg 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with others main subject is almost perfect (with a little tilt), but branches are very distructing and take the focus from the builduing to them, plus hiding it partially while it seems it was possible to come closer and shoot without them in frame? --Горбунова М.С. 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 05 Jan → Mon 13 Jan
  • Mon 06 Jan → Tue 14 Jan
  • Tue 07 Jan → Wed 15 Jan
  • Wed 08 Jan → Thu 16 Jan
  • Thu 09 Jan → Fri 17 Jan
  • Fri 10 Jan → Sat 18 Jan
  • Sat 11 Jan → Sun 19 Jan
  • Sun 12 Jan → Mon 20 Jan
  • Mon 13 Jan → Tue 21 Jan