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 May 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 May 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 May 17 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]] 03:37, 17 May 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).


May 17, 2024[edit]

May 16, 2024[edit]

May 15, 2024[edit]

May 14, 2024[edit]

May 13, 2024[edit]

May 12, 2024[edit]

May 11, 2024[edit]

May 10, 2024[edit]

May 9, 2024[edit]

May 8, 2024[edit]

May 7, 2024[edit]

May 6, 2024[edit]

May 5, 2024[edit]

May 4, 2024[edit]

May 3, 2024[edit]

May 2, 2024[edit]

May 1, 2024[edit]

April 29, 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:Close_wing_Nectaring_of_Rapala_manea_(Hewitson,_1863)_-_Slate_Flash_WLB_IMG_1701a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Nectaring of Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) - Slate Flash. By User:Sandipoutsider --Atudu 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MS Sakib 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I have to disagree. Subject is blurry. --Nacaru 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Nacaru. Too blurry, unortunately --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 12:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Škoda_Superb_IV_Combi_IMG_9982.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Škoda Superb IV Combi in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I don't like the reflections in the windshield at all. In addition, the car is very crowded and the cut is unnecessarily narrow. Please discuss whether this photo is really a QI. -- Spurzem 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beechcraft_Staggerwing_D17S_NC67555_FDK_MD2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beechcraft Staggerwing at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Signature repaired. Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Interesting subject. There is some potential for FP IMO --LexKurochkin 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Actually not bad, but I wonder how the strange artifacts between the characters of the lettering on the wing came about. --Smial 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • It is easy to get artifacts in text in 400mm images of moving objects like that in post, and lifting the shadows under planes against a bright sky, even in RAW, can be tricky. I'll see if I can correct it. Acroterion 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the ghosting around the lettering, and adjusted the white balance a little to take out some green. Acroterion 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Howard_DGA-15P_NC67423_FDK_MD2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Howard DGA-15P at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Signature repaired Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --LexKurochkin 08:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok. --Smial 12:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 08:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Monte_Velino_view.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monte Velino view --PaestumPaestum 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Bad lighting conditions --Moroder 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    I improved the light,is it okay now? Thank you.--PaestumPaestum 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_playing_guard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination house cat --KaiBorgeest 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I love cats, but the photo shown here is not a quality image for me. The right side of the animal is too dark, out of focus, and the background is crooked. A pity. But perhaps it's debatable that I'm looking at it wrong. -- Spurzem 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I saw the composition and mood as compensation. --Acroterion 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. QIC is mostly about technical quality, so "mood" isn't something I'm emphasizing in this case.--Peulle 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Blurred by noise reduction combined with oversharpening. Or was it the built-in artificial intelligence that went wild and wrong when it tried to simulate a shallow depth of field in portrait mode? I don't think the exposure, lighting, composition and colors are bad at all. --Smial 10:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, great scene, looking really good in the preview, but technical quality is poor (probably due to a combination of low f-stop, high noise, high noise reduction and AI sharpening by the smartphone). --Plozessor 14:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cat is not sharp at all --Jakubhal 05:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Segolene_church_in_Soual_(12).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Segolene church in Soual (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Why is this image presented for QI? -- Spurzem 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I did not see the whole size. Please exuse me. -- Spurzem 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely very sharp. I don't understand your vote, is it a mistake ? --Sebring12Hrs 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Must be. To me this is very much sharp. --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I honestly don't understand why this picture is here.--GoldenArtists (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is fine, the picture is good. --Syrio 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably a slow upload --Moroder 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Nacaru 00:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversharpened, sorry --Nikride 09:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the pattern. -- Marnanel 16:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Paysage_de_fin_de_journée_à_la_Galite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paysage de fin de journée à la Galite.jpg --Atef Ouni 11:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy sky, sorry --Nikride 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Nikride. I'm sorry. --Nacaru 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Promising in the preview, technically disappointing in full resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cáceres_-_Towers_of_San_Francisco_Javier.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cáceres (Extremadura, Spain) - Towers of St. Francis Xavier church, viewed from Plaza Santa Maria --Benjism89 11:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Colors look unnatural, can you correct it, Benjism89? --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nacaru: Not sure which way you would like colors corrected, white balance seems OK to me. Do you feel it's oversaturated ? This picture was taken in the morning, maybe an hour after sunrise, hence the light. Benji 05:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The color looks good to me. --Syrio 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colors are looking fine. Composition is probably unusual but I like it. --Plozessor 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Orchis_mâle,_montagne_de_la_Motte,_Champsaur,_France_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Early Purple Orchid (Orchis mascula), Champsaur, France. --Yann 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit noisy, otherwise good --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noisy, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per MB-one. Good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Double-headed eagle of Russia on the top of Znamenka palace. Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy --Nikride 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support can't agree with opposers. Noise and unsharpness starts only if you zoom image so hard, so upper crown would fill all the screen. That's borderline but ok for me. Красный 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise and processing artifacts at full resolution, but that is high and it looks perfectly fine at lower, still adequate, resolution. --Plozessor 04:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at the eagle heads, this photo looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle 10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior detail of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Красный 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low detail level and sharpness.--Peulle 08:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, while I think the level of detail is borderline high enough, I think it needs better composition. Bottom right side touches the edge while bottom left doesn't, top-left side shows the corner while top-right doesn't. Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Salzburg_2014_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Salzburg Hauptbahnhof --Perituss 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Would be good if not for the bicycles down right. Sorry --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically the photo is sufficient for QI, and maybe someone is looking for a photo with the bicycles in front of the station? --Smial 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial -- Екатерина Борисова 21:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the bicycles are not disturbing. --Plozessor 04:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Photographers_in_Rabat.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photographers at Mausoleum Mohammed V, Rabat --PetarM 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The photographers are quite good but the post on the right adds nothing to the image (move to the left a little). Also, the three people in the background are too distracting, particularly the man in the middle doing something with his nose. --GRDN711 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I opposed at FP but think this is perfectly fine for QI. BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --AuHaidhausen 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI IMO. Nacaru 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Nacaru 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_Saint-Grégoire_(Marckolsheim).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Grégoire Chapel in Marckolsheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 19:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too dark and tilted --Jacek Halicki 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way underexposed. --Kallerna 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Better ? Gzen92 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now, the white is bright as it should be but there is still detail there. BigDom 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per BigDom. --Smial 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Plozessor 04:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI now. Nacaru 00:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Nacaru 00:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Οικία_των_ψηφιδωτών,_Ερέτρια_1584.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination House of the Mosaics, Ancient Eretria. --C messier 22:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Don't really understand the composition here. White wall at the back is showing on the right side, none of the bottom elements align. --Nacaru 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition/Perspective per Nacaru --Plozessor 04:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --BigDom (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_061.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Relief of Madonna & The Magi at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment I don't think it's sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sharpness seems acceptable but perspective is not ideal. --Plozessor 04:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Plozessor: Thanks for your view - what appears to be a 'non-ideal perspective' is due to an actual mis-alignment (non-parallel) edges at the bottom of the image, as is evidenced from the photos taken by others of this relief. --Scotch Mist 09:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't imagine it can be promote... --Sebring12Hrs 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Perhaps viewing photos taken by others (eg File:Malbork_zamek_38.jpg) in Category:St. Anne's Chapel (Malbork Castle) may be helpful. --Scotch Mist 06:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_112.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination River View of St Mary's Church, High Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork (Lightened Shadows!) --Scotch Mist 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • IMHO, it is better with the darker shadows. --C messier 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I agree with C messier, it kinda makes it look processed with the current shadows. Nacaru 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done OK, thank you both for your comments - have reverted to previous version!--Scotch Mist 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support. Nacaru 00:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version seems ok. --Plozessor 04:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Nacaru 00:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Thu 09 May → Fri 17 May
  • Fri 10 May → Sat 18 May
  • Sat 11 May → Sun 19 May
  • Sun 12 May → Mon 20 May
  • Mon 13 May → Tue 21 May
  • Tue 14 May → Wed 22 May
  • Wed 15 May → Thu 23 May
  • Thu 16 May → Fri 24 May
  • Fri 17 May → Sat 25 May