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 August 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 August 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 August 19 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]] 05:50, 19 August 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).


August 19, 2024

[edit]

August 18, 2024

[edit]

August 17, 2024

[edit]

August 16, 2024

[edit]

August 15, 2024

[edit]

August 14, 2024

[edit]

August 13, 2024

[edit]

August 12, 2024

[edit]

August 11, 2024

[edit]

August 10, 2024

[edit]

August 9, 2024

[edit]

August 7, 2024

[edit]

August 6, 2024

[edit]

August 5, 2024

[edit]

August 1, 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:Kühlungsborn,_Buhne_--_2024_--_4840.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Groynes on the coast in Kühlungsborn, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany --XRay 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF, very little in focus. --Tagooty 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. IMO the DoF is good for the effect. --XRay 08:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. I like the small dof here. --ArildV 13:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Foundation_series_Cybertruck_at_dusk_in_San_Jose_dllu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Foundation Series Tesla Cybertruck seen in south San Jose. --Dllu 01:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; composition is good, but especially the rear is not sharp and somehow washed out. --Alexander-93 10:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Martin_church_in_Znin_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A nice and wide composition. But I think there was too much PC involved here. This results in an unrealistic reproduction of the proportions (see this as reference). Additionally the right building is leaning out. --Augustgeyler 10:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unnatural curve of the church as it appears in the picture does not correspond to reality. See the view in Google Maps. -- Spurzem 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church is surely not curved in reality. If this is a panorama, should use a different projection. If it was a single shot with a wide-angle lens, it can probably be fixed with Photoshop "Spherize" function, lens corrections during raw conversion, or similar. --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Oxford_2024_038.jpg

[edit]

  •  Weak oppose Perspective and exposure improved. Sharpness remains borderline. --Augustgeyler 19:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler and Sebring12Hrs: Perspective redone, sharpened, plus a few other tweaks while I was at it. How does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
      •  Support Sharpness is not the best, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Still a bit dark, and at the top strongly distorted due perspective correction, but overall OK IMO. --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_rue_du_Fort_66_-_2024-08-05_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Maison située rue du Fort numéro 66. --Jmh2o 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Left crop isn't optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Jmh2o 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong PC led to unrealistic proportions here (see the elliptic traffic sign on the left) --Augustgeyler 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, I actually retouched the image. But I don't think the proportions have become unrealistic. I uploaded the original image to compare with the edited image. Sincerely. File:Charleroi - rue du Fort 66 - 2024-08-05 - 01 - original.jpg (Google translate) --Jmh2o 07:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jmh2o, I’m sorry to say this, but seeing the original image was quite surprising for me. I hadn’t expected such a drastic difference. The unedited image clearly reveals how challenging the original perspective was: the camera angle was very close, positioned high up, not centred, and slightly tilted. To create the final image, a significant amount of processing was needed. In my opinion, we should invest more effort at the location (in this case, perhaps waiting for the car to be moved, or using a tripod for a higher angle) rather than relying heavily on post-processing. Alternatively, if it's not possible to achieve a geometrically accurate image due to the circumstances, we could consider nominating it as a Valued Image instead of a Quality Image. In this case, the result appears  Overprocessed. --August (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment When you see Velvet or Tournasol7 pictures, this is the same thing. You can't take good pictures in thoose very tight streets. You need to correct the perspective. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If so you have to except that we can sometimes not get QIs form some objects. But in this special case the original image was taken without doing everything to get the best possible. It was not even taken from a centred position. --Augustgeyler 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: merci pour les conseils. --Jmh2o 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Le 5 août, j'ai eu plus de chance (Category:Rue de la Science (Charleroi)). Une seule voiture dans la rue. Mais, c'était les vacances scolaires, et derrière moi, il y avait une école. --Jmh2o 17:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • [Translated with AI] Oui, Jmh2o, la plupart des autres images de la catégorie semblent nettement meilleures. Il semble qu'il ait été nécessaire de faire moins de corrections sur celles-ci. En plus, tu as pu te placer dans un point de vue central pour de nombreuses maisons, ce qui aide beaucoup. Cependant, le meilleur résultat ne peut être obtenu que si tu pouvais également élever la caméra à la moitié de la hauteur du bâtiment, par exemple en photographiant depuis le premier étage de la maison en face :-) . Mais je sais que cela n'est possible que dans des cas très particuliers, lorsque ce type d'accès se présente par hasard. Merci pour ton engagement à documenter toutes ces rues.
  •  Support IMO OK now. Contrast could be better, but it's acceptable. --XRay 07:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Phalempin_chemin_voie_ferree.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Path along the railway, in Phalempin, France --Velvet 05:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too harsh IMO --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one actually works for me. To get an image with this much shade looking as sharp as it is, is difficult. Commons needs images of things that are not in direct sunlight too.--Peulle 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Peulle. --Plozessor 04:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows must be improved. Otherwise OK. --XRay 07:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 07:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Vishnu_Pandal_Garhi_Padhavali_004.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panels in Vishnu Pandal Garhi PadhavaliI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2021. --Suyash.dwivedi 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is lacking sharpness and composition. It was taken from a slightly off angle and is tilted. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, could be fixed though. --Plozessor 04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:M017F004_Schloss_Wilhelmsburg_und_Kirche_St._Georg_in_Schmalkalden.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View through the west portal of Wilhelmsburg Castle onto the old town of Schmalkalden. --Augustgeyler 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry:  Level of detail too low, blurred, too low sharpness for QI. --F. Riedelio 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the image is sharp enough and hand as a normal level of detail. Looking for more opinions.--Augustgeyler 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this one is too fuzzy, yes.--Peulle 08:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Is the first review perhaps a bit of a retaliation? A bit more sharpness would be desirable and the foreground could be brighter. But the image composition is very nice, I like it. -- Spurzem 10:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)~
  •  Oppose Sorry, yes, the composition is really great, but IMO it's too blurry and grainy for QI. However, there is also a disturbing scratch (?) right to the towers (above the clock tower in background, I guess this photo was digitized from an analog photo). That could be retouched I guess. --Plozessor 04:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Calanque_des_Eaux_Salées_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eaux-salées viaduct, Carry-le-Rouet. --Kallerna 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. I like the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Good composition but partly  Overexposed and blurred  Level of detail too low right third. --F. Riedelio 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support IMO acceptable. Hard to have both, shadowy parts as well as water reflecing bright sunlight, in the dynamic range of a single shot, but you also can't easily use HDR with a moving subject (like the waves). Right side is a bit blurry, but the bridge is framing, not the actual subject. --Plozessor 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Niasviž_Benedictine_Sisters_Convent_Tower_2023-07-02_6087.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Benedictine sisters convent tower, Niasviž, Belarus‎. --Mike1979 Russia 06:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Intense PC let to distortion. --Augustgeyler 08:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't agree with you. The foto taken with 45mm focus on crop. The tower has the realistic proportions. --Mike1979 Russia 09:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. I can't see any perspective distortion at all. ReneeWrites 22:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, there is no perspective distortion anymore. But the intense correction let to wrong proportions. See the buildings in the back for example. --Augustgeyler 05:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You are very wrong. See the original file before corrections. The PC was minimal. And see other fotos of this object in the category. --Mike1979 Russia 05:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I am sorry. I miss interpreted your nomination. Thanks for clarifying. --August (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Krems_ad_Donau_Jahn-Denkmal_Stadtpark-8693.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, city park of Krems an der Donau, Lower Austria --Isiwal 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has perspective distortion and looks slighty tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 04:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_77-79_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose defects near the hole in the roof. --Kallerna 10:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Снегопад_над_озером_Каинды.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowfall over Kaindy Lake, Kolsay Lakes national park, Kazakhstan. By User:MariSimonova --Екатерина Борисова 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shot with a camera, capable of 46,9 megapixel, this image has only 2,7 megapixel. This image must have been scaled down or heavily cropped. --Augustgeyler 04:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment probably taken over the lake, therefore certainly a section --Georgfotoart 12:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler because it's a landscape photo.--Peulle 08:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It seems to comply with QI guidelines, also I really like the composition. Resolution is low but still meeting the standards. --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Selección_de_Voley_Argentina_previo_a_Paris_2024_-_BugWarp_(52).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Argentina men's national volleyball team during their last training in Argentina before the start of the 2024 Summer Olympics. By User:BugWarp --MB-one 11:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cut off hands. --Augustgeyler 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --XtraJovial 10:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The person being photographed has obviously positioned themselves for the photo, so it's not an action shot, where I'm normally quite tolerant in my judgement. If there was enough time for this, there would also have been enough time to choose a suitable focal length that doesn't look cartoonish and, above all, to make sure that the entire sports hall lighting isn't reflected in the glasses. The unfortunate cropping of the hands, on the other hand, is a minor detail. --Smial 12:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Smial. --Plozessor 04:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Tesla_Model_S_Plaid_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9278_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tesla Model S Plaid at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well composed. But DoF is too small. Only the very front of the car is in focus. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think sharpness and contrast can be improved and the crop should not be so tight. Therefore I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Sharp enough overall, and no disturbing background. --Plozessor 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Swindon_Steam_Railway_Museum_2024_252.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GWR 7800 Class 7821 Ditcheat Manor on display in Designer Outlet Swindon, next to Swindon Steam Railway Museum --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out highlights at the roof. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Difficult to avoid with the roof windows. I've uploaded a new version that reduces the impact, if that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this information unfortunately is simply lost. --Augustgeyler 22:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better quality now. XtraJovial 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XtraJovial 18:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 11 Aug → Mon 19 Aug
  • Mon 12 Aug → Tue 20 Aug
  • Tue 13 Aug → Wed 21 Aug
  • Wed 14 Aug → Thu 22 Aug
  • Thu 15 Aug → Fri 23 Aug
  • Fri 16 Aug → Sat 24 Aug
  • Sat 17 Aug → Sun 25 Aug
  • Sun 18 Aug → Mon 26 Aug
  • Mon 19 Aug → Tue 27 Aug