Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 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 June 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 June 22 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]] 18:50, 22 June 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).


June 22, 2024

[edit]

June 21, 2024

[edit]

June 20, 2024

[edit]

June 19, 2024

[edit]

June 18, 2024

[edit]

June 17, 2024

[edit]

June 16, 2024

[edit]

June 15, 2024

[edit]

June 14, 2024

[edit]

June 13, 2024

[edit]

June 12, 2024

[edit]

June 11, 2024

[edit]

June 10, 2024

[edit]

June 7, 2024

[edit]

June 6, 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:Ratslaukums,_Riga_(DSC02283).jpg

[edit]

✓ Done Applied manual perspective correction and pulled down the lights a bit. Thank you both for the reviews. --MB-one 11:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good, but the church looks unnatural because the correction of distortion is too strong --Екатерина Борисова 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion, bad light (underexposed). --Kallerna 07:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. The distortion is too bad here. --Augustgeyler 13:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Gniazdo_Tarnicy_i_Halicza,_widok_ze_zbocza_Krzemienia_przed_przełęczą_Goprowską,_Bieszczady,_październik_2019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the nest of Tarnica and Halicz, view from the slope of Krzemień in front of the Goprowska Pass, Bieszczady, October 2019 --KrzysztofPoplawski 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Horizon is bulged. Alignment have to be fixed. QIs shouldn't be downsized images.--Milseburg 15:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 17:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits.--Milseburg 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sasanian_art_in_Hermitage_by_Darafsh_S-250.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plate with Khosrow II and nobles --Lvova 09:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 10:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits. --Augustgeyler 08:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight and the image looks over-processed and over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 11:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, you just can't take a reasonable picture of such a small object in dim light with a smartphone. --Plozessor 07:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:The_common_green_magpie_in_flgiht.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the common green magpie in flgiht. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 08:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 10:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits. --Augustgeyler 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As with baya weaver image, needs better categorizatoin and image description per COM:QIC Image Page Requirements (3) to have the best utility in Commons going forward. --GRDN711 12:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info This should be switched to consensual review. --Augustgeyler 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is sharp, the level of blur is different in different areas (AI processed?), and halos around the bird. --Plozessor 07:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Texture on the left wing makes me suspect AI processing too. Even if the original would not meet QI requirements I think a blurry but authentic picture would be better. ReneeWrites 17:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:The_baya_weaver_with_nesting_material.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the baya weaver with nesting material. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 08:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 11:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits. --Augustgeyler 08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image is QI quality but per COM:QIC Image Page Requirements (3), needs better documentation if you want it to have long term utility in Commons going forward. Categorization for birds should be down to the sub-species level if known. Is it a male Ploceus philippinus philippinus? If so, the image description needs to reflect that along with the nesting material behavior. Approximate location description and GPS coordinates would also be useful. --GRDN711 12:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info This should be switched to consensual review. --Augustgeyler 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The image's been properly categorized now. No location data is known apparently, but that's not a hard QI requirement. ReneeWrites 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:(USA-New_York)_NYC_Medallion_Cab_Nissan_NV200_NY-Taxi-Y204070C_2024-06-19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nissan NV200 Medallion Cab in New York City. S5A-0043 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Severely posterized. ReneeWrites 19:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Borderline but IMO acceptable. Subject is the cab and that is fine, except for the small white halo around the number but that is not visible in lower (still acceptable) resolution. --Plozessor 07:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:(USA-New_York)_NYC_Medallion_Cab_Toyota_Camry_NY-Taxi-1F28B_2024-06-19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toyota Camry Medallion Cab in New York City. S5A-0043 01:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Severely posterized (see "halo" effect around letters on the car, flowers in the background merging into blobs). ReneeWrites 19:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technically not worse than the other picture, but the taxi behind (with the same color) disturbs the composition as the subject doesn't stand out. --Plozessor 07:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Ruta_a_la_punta_olímpica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruta a la punta olímpica, Huaraz, Ancash, Perú --Candy WikiAcción 17:37, 19 Junio 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree.  Level of detail too low --Milseburg 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low per Milseburg, typical smartphone picture that looks good only at low resolution. Besides, the clouds don't look natural, I guess that there was some AI processing by the phone. --Plozessor 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Augustgeyler 09:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Allincapac_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nevado Allincapac en Macusani, Puno, Perú --Candy WikiAcción 17:29, 19 Junio 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Красный 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, CAs --Milseburg 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low, massive purple chromatic aberration, and a rectangular area in the middle that is brighter than the surroundings. All of that should be fixable with better raw conversion though (it was taken with a good camera at ISO 160). --Plozessor 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Wings_to_waves_-_fishing_at_Kakinada_Beach.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment It was not reviewed (unassesed). I think it and can be nominated here. Let's discuss. --Augustgeyler 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think that unassessed images could be nominated again and again, but OK, let's hear what other users have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 07:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not aware of a rule that forbids re-nomination of unassessed images. But in any case, this image is quite grainy. The composition is really interesting but IMO the DOF is too low, only some drops are sharp. --Plozessor 07:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Blue_Mercedes-Benz_220S_side_view.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Mercedes-Benz 220S --ReneeWrites 19:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question The resolution seems to be low. Did you downsample the original image? --Augustgeyler 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No, but maybe I cropped it too tight. Should I increase the crop a bit, or nominante something else? ReneeWrites 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment In that case I'd suggest withdrawing these nominations. Due to cropping they are lacking resolution and detail and there is a strong lens distortion. --Augustgeyler 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @ReneeWrites: you just deleted this nomination at 19:20, 20. Jun. 2024‎ completely. I reinserted it. We are not allowed to simply delete nominations here. Please don't do this. I have to oppose now. --Augustgeyler 19:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • People remove nominations all the time without issue, and I removed mine after you told me to? ReneeWrites 21:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Augustgeyler asked you to withdraw, not delete, your nomination. Meaning, change "/Nomination" to "/Withdraw". Otherwise,  Oppose for this picture due quality (left edge of the car is looking weird and in general quality is not optimal). --Plozessor 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @ReneeWrites: If you want to withdraw a nomination please make a comment with {{withdraw}} and change the status to Withdrawn. But I personally suggest not doing so after others started voting on it already. --August Geyler (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Губаницы,_кирха_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint John the Baptist lutheran church in Gubanitsy, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Slightly leaning out on the right side. --Plozessor 03:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I checked it out by looking at the basement of the church. It's not leaning. perhaps the leaning is an optical illusion arising from the angle of shooting. --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Added three image notes to objects that are clearly not vertical in the picture. Please check (of course it is possible that these are not vertical in reality). --Plozessor 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I see your notes, great thanks for the work done. But it seems to me that QI project is not about these millimeters of deviations from verticals. I don't mean just this photo, but also many others that are commented on in a similar way. Of course visible and disturbing distortions should be corrected but not those that do not affect the overall impression. It's just my opinion and I won't argue if you decline my photo. Thanks again for your attention. --Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I am with you regarding that only "visible and disturbing distortions should be corrected", however, in that case, it IS clearly 'visible and disturbing' for me. I saw the picture for the first time and my impression was immediately that something is off with the perspective. --Plozessor 08:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not vertical at the millimeter, but I think it's acceptable. It needs more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't mind the vertices, but the sharpness in full resolution is a bit to blurry for QI. --Milseburg 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Vallombrosa_Cascata_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vallombrosa - Waterfall caused by winter rains--Anna.Massinil 08:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a nice scene. But it is tilted cw, lacks detail and looks over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 10:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whether it's tilted is hard to judge in a natural environment where nothing is straight, but otherwise I'm fully with Augustgeyler here - massively overprocessed smartphone picture. --Plozessor 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Vallombrosa_cascata_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vallombrosa - Waterfall caused by winter rains - note the stalactite-like ice formations on the left--Anna.Massini 19:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It's look like overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No, that's really how the shot is. But I respect the opinion.Anna.Massini 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I know but this is because it'sa smartphone picture. I put my comment as a... comment to have more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • First you object by marking red, then after my denial it goes back blue, and now? Can I ask for it to be transferred to consensual review?I would like to point out that I have photos taken with my phone that have been promoted as showcase photos, so the fact that it was taken with a smartphone means nothing, it is not mandatory to have a reflex camera. I also point out that I don't shoot with a reflex because for my health I can't carry heavy things with me and for this reason I shoot with my smartphone. --Anna.Massini 08:23, 20 June 2024(UTC)
  •  Oppose Lets move it to consensual review. I have to oppose it because it looks overprocessed and over-contrasted due to smartphone processing. Let's wait for other opinions. --Augustgeyler 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not our problem if you can't carry a relfex. Smartphone pictures often have problems of overprocessing --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • -Certainly that the problem is mine and not yours, I wasn't looking for empathy, I was just saying that you can take beautiful photos even with a smartphone. I also got FP with smartphone. --Anna.Massini 06:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • You can take "beautiful photos even with a smartphone" in bright sunlight, but usually not under darker conditions like in this case. The sensor noise is just too high and the smartphone must apply massive processing to make it look halfway acceptable, but in full resolution it really doesn't look good (thus  Oppose from me). On a side note, I have the same issue as you that I'm not willing to "carry heavy things with me", thus I got a Ricoh GR III which fits into my pants pocket but still takes gorgeous pictures with its APS-C sensor. --Plozessor 08:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August Geyler (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Toyota_GR_Yaris_RZ_(2020)_IMG_9308.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toyota GR Yaris RZ ready for delivery in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 07:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support IMO Ok. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a nice place to photograph a car, and the image is very tightly cropped. But what bothers me most is the tarpaulin over the roof and the green label in the windshield. Sorry, but IMO not Ok. -- Spurzem 20:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know what the problem is with the place. The fence? The image shows a vehicle, which has to be prepared for delivery. Therefore I think the tarpaulin is not a valid reason for declining the image here at QI (it's not VI).--Alexander-93 13:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is ok. The label in the windshield and the tarpaulin are not photographic defects. --Plozessor 13:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello Plozessor, I don't understand what you mean by a quality image. Is it just about the photo being sharp and the vertical lines being vertical? For me, there's more to a good image than that. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
By a "quality image" I mean an image that meets the Commons image guidelines. Of course, some of the criteria (like composition) is quite subjective. From my point of view, this image would meets all of the criteria and could be used to illustrate an article. --Plozessor 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It can be seen as QI. But I think the crop is just too tight here. --Augustgeyler 13:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, not worried about the crop, and the tarpaulin and green label are part of the 'ready for delivery' point mentioned in the description, so are part of the topic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 13:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Itzehoe,_Germany_Den_Opfern_des_Nationalsozialismus_3_IMG_4026.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Itzehoe, Germany Denkmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus --Nightflyer 18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective not good, some flowers are burned out in the foreground. And level of detail is borderline. --Augustgeyler 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now. Picture is borderline. It's clearly photographed top down, 'fixing the verticals' would make it look unnatural. However, it's also curved. If that could be fixed in raw conversion or post-processing (something like negative spherize in Photoshop), I might support it. --Plozessor 05:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sasanian_art_in_Hermitage_by_Darafsh_S-271_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cup with Cosmological Subjects. By User:Darafsh --Lvova 06:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This was cropped in too much resulting in  Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 11:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now. In general it's not a good idea to take pictures of very small objects inside buildings with smartphones. The level of detail here is borderline, however, it's cropped too tight at the sides, that doesn't look good IMO. Give it a bit more space to breathe to the left and right and I might support it. --Plozessor 05:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix. Lvova 09:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sometimes the only way to take a picture of a museum object for Wikimedia projects is to do it with smartphone, because it is often forbidden to shoot on good cameras in museums. -- Екатерина Борисова 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Thx, still borderline but just about acceptable for me. --Plozessor 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some objects simply can't be taken at QI level by visitors of exhibitions. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. Can you say specifically what is bad about the picture? If I compare it to some of the others that are being hyped up here, it is an excellent shot. The sharpness is good, the color is good, no distracting surroundings, well placed. What more could we want for QI? -- Spurzem 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Scleranthus_perennis_3_RF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Perennial knawel (Scleranthus perennis) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred and not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)}
  •  Comment Thanks for the review. I replaced the file by a slightly denoised and sharpened version. Please also consider that the perianth has usually a length of about 2.5 to 3.5 mm. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version is QI for me. --C messier 17:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Granada_-_Hospital_Real_-_Patio_de_los_Mármoles_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Granada (Andalusia, Spain) - Royal Hospital (now a university building) - Courtyard of the Marbles --Benjism89 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sand-colored ceiling of the arches seems to blend into the grey background in some areas (especially in the middle 3 arches). This doesn't appear natural to me. The surface blur that has been applied seems to have destroyed a lot of detail as well, e.g. the walls have no texture, nor do the leaves on the plants. ReneeWrites 20:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, thanks for your review, I hadn't noticed that the arches were fading into the grey background (due to inappropriate and actually quite unnecessary noise reduction). I uploaded a new version of the file, hope you find it OK now. Benjism89 22:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support The new version is a huge improvement. ReneeWrites 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even at 4 MP it's looking somewhat overprocessed, not sharp and lacking detail. --Plozessor 05:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 05:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Blue_Mercedes-Benz_220S_three-quarter_front_view.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Mercedes-Benz 220S --ReneeWrites 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car is unnaturally elongated. That's why I don't think the photo is a QI. Please discuss whether others see it differently. -- Spurzem 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective isn't optimal, it was taken from too short distance resulting in the unnatural look that Spurzem mentioned. But I'm more concerned about the blue car in the background that spoils the composition. The color is just too similar so that the Mercedes doesn't stand out. --Plozessor 05:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Spurzem. --Augustgeyler 07:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a new version: Adjusted the elongation of the car, adjusted color of the car in the background. ReneeWrites 19:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Interesting fix :O. I think you should add a "Retouched" template to the description due to the color change, then I might change my vote. --Plozessor 08:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Added the template. ReneeWrites 08:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_presso_San_Satiro_cupola_battistero_Milano.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination "Santa Maria presso San Satiro" church, dome in Milan--Moroder 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Noisy and a lot of chroma noise. --Sebring12Hrs 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Guidelines for QIC say:"Images should not have DISTRACTING amount of noise when viewed in full size." I don't think this is the case --Moroder 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment But look at under the brown cornice, this is very noisy with chroma noise. --Sebring12Hrs 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, the chroma noise is massive (and sharpness is borderline too). You might still be able to improve it with better raw conversion, though. --Plozessor 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak  Support. Well, I'm very critical of the trust Moroder places in his camera's antishake, and the noise is indeed a bit high, but in this case I think the result is still acceptable. Good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 13:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Mercedes-Benz_S214_450d_IMG_9156.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Mercedes-Benz S214 450d in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 08:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Photos to showcase cars should not be taken at nightfall. Also, I find the roof of the car in the background above the main subject distracting. Please discuss.-- Spurzem 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Green_Imperial_Pigeon_facts_01.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Green Imperial Pigeon by Shiv's fotografia. --Satdeep Gill 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Decline
    •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Looks out of focus/too soft (especially in full resolution). Please discuss. --C messier 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Blurry, halos, lack of detail, overprocessed. The camera should do way better at ISO 200, so maybe there was an error in processing. --Plozessor 05:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:At_Morocco_2023_20.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Volkswagen Caddy in Morocco --Mike Peel 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Car and background are too distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 23:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support It seems to me that it is not necessary to find fault with insignificant details in the background, since they are not the subject of the shooting, while the main object is shown very qualitatively. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Hello Екатерина Борисова, just for your information: The main object is unnaturally distorted and not "shown very qualitatively". You can't really see it because it's too dark. And the background isn't supposed to be part of the picture indeed, but it is visible and it's hanging very crookedly. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Caballito_de_mar_pigmeo_(Hippocampus_bargibanti),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_26.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Bargibant's seahorse (Hippocampus bargibanti), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose I think it's too much noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment New version, QI to me, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Borderline resolution but otherwise good (now). --Plozessor 10:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Beautiful quality. ReneeWrites 21:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Botete_cara_de_perro_(Arothron_nigropunctatus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_64.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Blackspotted puffer (Arothron nigropunctatus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose The head is not focused enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment New version, clear QI to me, please, bear in mind the size of the image given that it was taken under water. --Poco a poco 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Did not see the original version, but the new one is clearly good enough for me. --Plozessor 10:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 04:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Detailed and beautiful. ReneeWrites 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Райская_мухоловка.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Indian Paradise Flycatcher at the tree branch in Shirkent park. Tursunzoda District, Districts under Central Government Jurisdiction, Tajikistan. By User:Мухаммадсолех Оев --Красный 04:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 13:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Vignetting. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support "Inappropriate vignetting" is a defect per image guidelines, but the vignetting here seems appropriate to me, it perfectly frames the bird. --Plozessor 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question Was the vignetting effect produced by the lens itself or was it added in post production? --Augustgeyler 11:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Would you have ask the same question for the noise ? Sebring12Hrs 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I'd only ask, if things don't look as expectable for the gear in use, especially if there was added something new. --Augustgeyler 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose the artificial vignette destroys the educational and documentary value. It also seems to me that the colour contrast may have been enhanced too much. --Smial 23:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Agree with Smial about vignetting --Jakubhal 04:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support The idea that the vignetting "destroys the educational and documentary value" of this picture is hyperbolic and clearly not true. I would've preferred a version without the vignetting but come on. ReneeWrites 19:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose With Smial. --Augustgeyler 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 04:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:L1_Sydney_Light_Rail_diagram.png

    [edit]

    • Nomination Route diagram of L1 Dulwich Hill Line. --SHB2000 13:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Strange shadow on the insides of the line curves.  Neutral Also, since SVG is avaliable (albeit also with these shadows and inappropropriate serif font), I don't see why the PNG should be promoted. Will certainly support a nomination of the SVG, once fixed. --MB-one 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per MB-one. --Plozessor 10:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose With MB-one. --Augustgeyler 11:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    @MB-one, Plozessor, and Augustgeyler: Fixed, though hard disagree about the SVG. Inkscape SVGs contain SVG errors hence why they don't render properly on Commons. --SHB2000 13:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 21:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 05:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I think intense perspective correction based on a very close and low point of view led to unnatural proportions. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I would skew it (make the right side lower) to reduce the extreme distortion. --Plozessor 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Каменная_гряда_между_перевалом_Китаб_и_Тахтакарача.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Amankutan national park. Urgut District, Samarkand Region, Uzbekistan. By User:Уильям Дрейк --Красный 00:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --SHB2000 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose This is a bit noisy and has quite low contrast. Should be possible to get a better result with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Caterpillar_815F_soil_compactor_on_site_in_Sunnyvale,_facing_left.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination A Caterpillar 815F soil compactor at a job site in Sunnyvale, California. --Grendelkhan 23:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting. The main object is too dark. -- Spurzem 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality, main subject is well exposed. --C messier 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose I think light is OK here. But there is lack of detail due to processing here. --Augustgeyler 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Caterpillar_815F_soil_compactor_on_site_in_Sunnyvale,_facing_right.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination A Caterpillar 815F soil compactor at a job site in Sunnyvale, California. --Grendelkhan 23:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 05:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting. The main object is too dark. -- Spurzem 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose The image is somehow OK. The main object is in focus. But I think for QI it has too little detail due to intense processing here and it is slightly tilted as well as the background shows perspective distortion. A single issue would not hold it from becoming QI, but all together lets me tend to oppose. --August Geyler (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August Geyler (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Fri 14 Jun → Sat 22 Jun
    • Sat 15 Jun → Sun 23 Jun
    • Sun 16 Jun → Mon 24 Jun
    • Mon 17 Jun → Tue 25 Jun
    • Tue 18 Jun → Wed 26 Jun
    • Wed 19 Jun → Thu 27 Jun
    • Thu 20 Jun → Fri 28 Jun
    • Fri 21 Jun → Sat 29 Jun
    • Sat 22 Jun → Sun 30 Jun