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]

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. (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 December 2023.
  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 December 2023.
  • 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 December 02 2023 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]] 01:40, 2 December 2023 (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

December 1, 2023[edit]

November 30, 2023[edit]

November 29, 2023[edit]

November 28, 2023[edit]

November 27, 2023[edit]

November 26, 2023[edit]

November 25, 2023[edit]

November 24, 2023[edit]

November 23, 2023[edit]

November 22, 2023[edit]

November 21, 2023[edit]

November 20, 2023[edit]

November 19, 2023[edit]

November 17, 2023[edit]

November 16, 2023[edit]

November 15, 2023[edit]

November 14, 2023[edit]

November 10, 2023[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:2023_Wafel_Grześki_w_czekoladzie.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grześki wafers in chocolate --Jacek Halicki 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but that lacks DOF (the front is totally blurred) --Plozessor 07:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Explanation: With "front" I'm referring to the small side, when you view the wafer from lower right corner. That looks extremely blurry, as if it would have been massively blurred, compared to the top of the wafer which is adequately sharp. --Plozessor 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me.--Ermell 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't have a Grzesiek waffle to examine, but from what I recall, this photo depicts it well. The sides are smooth, which may give you the impression of the photo being blurred. The top, in contrast, has a more complex texture. Jakubhal 17:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal--Sandro Halank 23:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 23:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:OlgaParedes-GlamWiki2023.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Olga Paredes, architect and wikipedian of Bolivia, in GlamWiki2023, Montevideo, Uruguay --Ezarate 16:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 17:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Face is not sharp enough. --Sandro Halank 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I concur. The focus seems to be on the name tag rather than the face, which is the established standard here at QIC.--Peulle 08:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with votes above. Also not the best bottom crop with hands cut in half --Jakubhal 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Face OOF, quite noisy, hands cut off. --Plozessor 14:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Vista_aérea_de_Bogotá_al_sur_desde_la_Carrera_7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Bogota to the south from Carrera 7. --ProtoplasmaKid 08:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gugalcrom123 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, and perspective correction is required --Jakubhal 06:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful shot, but unfortunately extreme noise and lack of detail in the dark parts. --Plozessor 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the shot, but per Jakubhal and Plozessor: This is not a QI, sorry. --Sandro Halank 23:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 23:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Singe_La_View.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View on Singe La / Ladakh, India --Imehling 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose White balance off --Gugalcrom123 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Let's have a discussion about that. --Imehling 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I agree with Gugalcrom123. The snow in the picture is blue (#e9e7ff). Fix that and it's clearly a QI. --Plozessor 05:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I see no big issue with the WB, but there are some remains of CA. --Smial 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments, I'll give it another try after I have fixed it. --Imehling 16:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Parque_de_Eaton,_Norwich,_Inglaterra,_2022-11-20,_DD_28.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eaton Park, Norwich, England --Poco a poco 09:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Tricky exposure, HDR could help --Gugalcrom123 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I don't know what you talk about, there is no problem here with the exposure, multiple frames not required --Poco a poco 19:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support There is nothing wrong with exposure. HDR is not a requirement for QI, and the light conditions here are not even so extreme that it would benefit from HDR. --Plozessor 05:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant shortage. --Smial 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Sandro Halank 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Toronto,_November_10,_2023_-_055.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Elizabeth II (Toronto) --Another Believer 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too low level of detail with blurred statue --Jakubhal 05:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I miss no detail and the statue seems sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whole picture is not sharp, had massive NR applied (see the grass), and the statue is not even full in focus (thus even more blurred than the rest of the picture). Also it would need perspective correction. --Plozessor 11:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Digital zoom led to loss of fine detail. --C messier 20:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough --Sandro Halank 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aston_Martin_Vantage_(2017)_1X7A1543.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aston Martin Vantage in Filderstadt.--Alexander-93 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 17:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful car in disturbing surroundings, upper part of the image too bright, no QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Picture is good. Quite bright but IMO not overexposed. The other cars in the background are a bit disturbing, but they were there; the photographer made the best out of the circumstances. --Plozessor 11:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I keep thinking about my attempt to photograph the black cat in the dark basement without light. There was no light, so the picture was good. I should have introduced it as QI. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
No need to get personal. With "circumstances" I was referring to the fact that the car is surrounded by other cars, so there's not really a possibility to take a picture of it without other cars visible. I do NOT accept "circumstances" like "the camera can't take better pictures" or "it was evening and that's why the picture is too dark". --Plozessor 12:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Lothar, lass das doch mit den sarkastischen Kommentaren. Deinem Urteil bei Autofotos kann man in 99.9% der Fälle vertrauen, wenn da mal einer anderer Ansicht ist: Lass ihn doch. Schulterzuckend ignorieren und abhaken.
    Hallo Smial, wenn ich manche oder gar viele Bewertungen sehe und die Begründungen lese, fällt es mir schwer mich zurückzuhalten. Da werden zum Teil die Details auf einer glatten Wand vermisst, und im Gegensatz dazu gelten fehlbelichtete Fotos von Objekten in absolutem Durcheinander als Qualitätsbilder. Herzliche Grüße -- Spurzem 13:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Wäre doch langweilig, wenn bei Diskussionen alle der gleichen Meinung wären ;) ... Ich stimme dir aber völlig zu, dass manche Bewertungen ('auf dem Foto ist zwar nichts zu erkennen, aber das ist in Ordnung, weil es dunkel war und der Fotograf nur ein billiges Smartphone hatte') tatsächlich sehr seltsam sind. Gleichzeitig ist das Empfinden, wann ein Bild zu hell oder zu dunkel ist, aber relativ, solange es keine überstrahlten oder schwarzen Flächen gibt. Und es scheint auch Unterschiede zu geben, worauf jemand bei der Beurteilung den Fokus legt - bei diesem Bild hier kann man über die Helligkeit und den Hintergrund diskutieren, aber es ist ziemlich scharf. Die Statue obendrüber ist extrem unscharf (allein dafür würden die allermeisten das Bild ablehnen), perspektivisch verzerrt (allein dafür würden die allermeisten das Bild ablehnen) und hat einen unbrauchbaren Dateinamen (allein dafür würden die allermeisten das Bild ablehnen), aber für dich ist das Bild ok. Dafür sind Diskussionen halt da ... --Plozessor 14:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
So kann man es sicherlich sehen. Mir fällt seit einiger Zeit auf, dass für viele Juroren die Bildgestaltung absolut unbedeutend ist. Hauptsache: Das Bild ist scharf und die senkrechten Linien weichen kein halbes Grad von der Senkrechten ab, so unnatürlich es auch aussehen und alles andere verzerrt sein mag. -- Spurzem 14:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Ja, der Wahn nach korrekten 'verticals' ist mir hier als allererstes aufgefallen (schön zu sehen, dass das nicht nur mir seltsam erscheint). Ich hatte das Gefühl, dass es auf nichts anderes ankommt - die Vertikalen passen, QI, die Vertikalen passen nicht, kein QI. Wenn man Bilder von extrem weit von unten macht und das Bild dann so verzerrt, dass die Vertikalen passen, sieht es für meine Begriffe total unnatürlich aus (u. a. ist es oben extrem in die Höhe gezogen), wird aber anerkannt. Wenn man es natürlich aussehen lässt, hat man keine Chance. Bezüglich der Bildgestaltung muss ich mir aber auch mal an die eigene Nase fassen, da hatte ich nicht immer drauf geachtet (gleichzeitig gibt es da aber den größten Spielraum für individuellen Geschmack). Gab hier ja aber auch ein paar Diskussionen, wo behauptet wurde, bei QI ginge es ausschließlich um die technische Qualität und die Bildgestaltung ("composition") würde für QI keine Rolle spielen (was natürlich falsch ist). --Plozessor 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Bei der Bildgestaltung knirsche ich gerade bei den Auto-Fotos (aber nicht nur dort...) seit langem mit den Zähnen, die Karren werden fast ausnahmslos gruselig in Szene gesetzt. Aber hier ist QIC, nicht FPC, und da lehne ich Bilder nur relativ selten und wenn es ganz schlimm kommt wegen dieses Kriteriums ab. Sonst müsste ich ja bei beinahe jedem dieser Parkplatzknipsereien (sorry) Einspruch erheben. Was die Zwangsvertikalisierung angeht: Die Perspektivekorrektur habe ich zwar nicht erfunden, aber in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia vor vielen Jahren propagiert. Nur ging es da um das Vermeiden von weit verbreiteten Fehlern bei der Aufnahme. Und es ging um Aufnahmen mit gängigen Objektiven gemäßigter Brennweiten. Heute aber nutzen viele extreme Weitwinkelobjektive, "damit alles draufpaßt", deren Abbildungseigenschaften mit Bildwinkeln von 90°, 100° oder noch mehr von Haus aus schon sehr speziell sind, und diese werden dann zusätzlich noch digital geshiftet. Was dann schon mal zu rechnerischen Bildwinkeln von 130° oder mehr führt und nur noch als grotesk bezeichnet werden kann. Mit der eigentlichen Intention, Objekte so abzubilden, wie der Architekt die gezeichnet hat, nämlich mit vertikalen Wänden, hat das schon lange nichts mehr zu tun. Es wird dabei übersehen, dass Architekten für ihre perspektivischen Zeichnungen sowohl im Abstand wie auch vertikal einen frei wählbaren virtuellen Standort einnehmen können und bis auf seltene Ausnahmen gewöhnlich mit "Normalbrennweite" oder allenfalls leichtem Weitwinkel malen. Es ist in den allermeisten Fällenn unmöglich, das mit einer Kamera exakt zu kopieren oder auch nur halbwegs zu erreichen. --Smial 13:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sandro Halank 21:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Opel_Astra_L_PHEV_1X7A1516.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Opel Astra L PHEV in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 08:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 14:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed in places, especially behind the side window. In my opinion this is not QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Again, the other car is a bit disturbing but it was there. But the blown-out area behind the side window, as mentioned by Spurzem, is definitely an issue (as it's even white and not yellow). If that could be fixed in raw conversion, I would change my vote. --Plozessor 11:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor --Sandro Halank 20:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 20:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Maserati_Quattroporte_VI_Trofeo_1X7A0312.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maserati Quattroporte VI Trofeo in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Unfavorable light, which means the side windows and background are too bright. The dust on the car is also annoying. I would not have presented this photo as a quality image. -- Spurzem 16:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Please look to my comment above und discuss. -- Spurzem 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable light, overexposed, and the dirt on the car. --Plozessor 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor --Sandro Halank 20:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 20:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-174-84_Katholische_Pfarrkirche_St_Sebastian_(innen),_Kirchberg_10,_Mürsbach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside St Sebastian church in Mürsbach --Plozessor 05:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't agree with this. The windows are burned.--Famberhorst 06:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded an improved version, please check again. --Plozessor 06:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but the windows are still burned. I'm afraid it can't be repaired. Then you should have taken the photo in HDR.--Famberhorst 07:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is overexposed imo, and not only the windows. Alvesgaspar 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Where else? Anyway, I uploaded an improved version now, please have a look at that. --Plozessor 15:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Hohenschwangau_Castle_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hohenschwangau Castle, Hohenschwangau, Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany --Llez 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Technical quality is good, except for the really unbalanced composition (too much uninteresting sky, too little building). Since I suspect, that this isn't fixable, I'm afraid, I have to decline. Feel free to ask for more opinions though. --MB-one 13:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think there is too much sky. Reduce the sky would mean, to leave only little room above the top of the poles or even cut them off ("Let the poor thing breathe", as a wikipedia said several times some time ago). Please discuss. --Llez 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too much sky: No. Too little building: Yes, though that could be tolerated. However, the picture is blurry (probably from camera movement), the swan is not even sharp at 4 MP. With the combination of questionable composition and borderline sharpness, does probably not make a QI. --Plozessor 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How many QIs can we tolerate from same viewpoint and time? C'mon, pick the best and nominate that one, not the whole bunch. --Kallerna 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I know much QIs with less good composition. -- Spurzem 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem ! --Sebring12Hrs 11:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't deslike the composition, which seems balanced to me.-- Alvesgaspar 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 08:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Weisshorngruppe_in_den_Wolken.jpg_[edit]

  • Nomination: The mountain range around the Weisshorn in the clouds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite low resolution and not very much detail. Loss of quality to the left edge. --Milseburg 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment It looks like it is a crop from a single frame, not a sticthed panorama, and as such it isn't downsized. --C messier 06:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just about ok, but could benefit from increasing clarity. Currently it's quite pale. --Plozessor 05:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shorter edge of a panorama shot should have at least about 2000 pixels. Also somewhat overexposed. --Smial 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment The image guidelines mention 800 px, not 2000. Also, this isn't a panorama made of multible photos but a single photo. --C messier 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment The image guidlines mention also For "easy to take" images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.. A panoramic photo is not defined by the fact that it is composed of several individual images, but by the fact that the aspect ratio is significantly larger than the usual standard image formats, i.e. 2:1 or larger. For roll film 120/220, for example, there were panoramic cameras with an image format of 60x120mm or 60x170mm. Without any stitching. --Smial 13:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Looks o.k. to me, even though the low clouds obscure some parts. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast, too imposing darker foreground. Alvesgaspar 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-174-96_Wohnhaus_(Hauptgebäude_1723),_Zaugendorfer_Straße_9,_Mürsbach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timber-framed house from 1723 in Mürsbach --Plozessor 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentThe blurred person should be cloned out or left sharp with a personal rights template. --Ermell 06:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per my understanding of German law, I'm not allowed to upload a picture of that person with the face visible, and that can't be bypassed by adding a template. Unfortunately I also don't have enough material to clone him out professionally. --Plozessor 07:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI with the blurry person. Sorry. --Ermell 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a new version with only the actual face (not the whole person) blurred. Would like to discuss this to clarify how blurred faces, license plates and other privacy-related modifications are viewed in the context of QI. --Plozessor 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better but the noise should be reduced.--Ermell 20:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ermell you're hard to please ;) Noise reduced, please have a look. --Plozessor 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The old gentleman would probably be sad if he saw himself sitting there with his blurry face. It would also be nice if his feet were in the picture too. -- Spurzem 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Could be, but as said, per German law I'm not allowed to show his face without his consent. No QI then ... --Plozessor 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok, better than an ugly car in any case. --Imehling 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Imehling. --Sebring12Hrs 11:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe the shot could be done without the person, that would be much better than seing the blurred face. Also, the feet ar missing. Alvesgaspar 15:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment But the person was sitting there, and I rather pass on the QI promotion than requesting an old gentleman to go out of the way ;) Came back to the place a bit later, but then it was cloudy. (Still wondering why cars in front of buildings are usually tolerated, people without blurred faces are too, but people with blurred faces are not.) --Plozessor 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fine with me with the blurry face, but I agree that the bottom crop is unfortunate Poco a poco 18:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco, Alvesgaspar, and Spurzem: I just noticed that I have the gentleman's feet in the raw file and just had cropped to tight. Please review the new version! Thanks! --Plozessor 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The new crop is much better. --C messier 20:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now.--Ermell 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Ermell 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Fri 24 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
  • Sat 25 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
  • Sun 26 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
  • Mon 27 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
  • Tue 28 Nov → Wed 06 Dec
  • Wed 29 Nov → Thu 07 Dec
  • Thu 30 Nov → Fri 08 Dec
  • Fri 01 Dec → Sat 09 Dec
  • Sat 02 Dec → Sun 10 Dec