Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 02 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


January 2, 2025

[edit]

January 1, 2025

[edit]

December 31, 2024

[edit]

December 30, 2024

[edit]

December 29, 2024

[edit]

December 28, 2024

[edit]

December 27, 2024

[edit]

December 26, 2024

[edit]

December 25, 2024

[edit]

December 24, 2024

[edit]

December 23, 2024

[edit]

December 21, 2024

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

December 13, 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:Thomisus_lobosus_07786-Enhanced-NR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thomisus lobosus. --vengolis 18:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The animal is certainly tiny, but it looks rather blurry with very few fine details (e.g. hairs). In addition, there is no Exif data, no location and no date of recording. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Picture is good but description is lacking. Where, when and how was this taken, what kind of flower is this, it doesn't give anything except the species of the animal. --Plozessor 06:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and I don't like when flower pictures don't have information about location (as Robert Flogaus-Faust said). --Sebring12Hrs 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Also overcategorized and wrongly categorized now. Category:Insects on flowers of Lantana camara hybrids is some steps below Category:Lantana camara and a spider is not an insect! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn 2023 070 Copernicus Sculpture Face.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Face of Copernicus Sculpture --Scotch Mist 07:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Unfortunately, the hair and chest are out of focus. --Benjism89 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hair & chest are peripheral to the face which is the focus of the photo - another review please? --Scotch Mist 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discuss? --Scotch Mist 09:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The chest is still a part of the face, and per description this is supposed to show the "head", not the "face". I'd accept hair and neck out of focus, but here not even the full face is in focus. Also the nose is blown out. --Plozessor 06:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Mis-named file renamed - removing effect of sun on nose beyond this author's talents! --Scotch Mist 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Golf_Alltrack_(2020)_DSC_7316.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Golf Alltrack in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 09:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The image is too pale. -- Spurzem 12:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say "decline" or "contra" and I don't know who put it in. My only suggestion was that the photo is too pale. -- Spurzem 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment} As there is one pro and one contra argument I'll move it to the discussion --D-Kuru 21:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Roof rack and chrome strip under the window blown out. Probably fixable with better raw conversion (with lower exposure). --Plozessor 05:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your reviews, I uploaded a darker version.--Alexander-93 09:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, new version is good IMO. --Plozessor 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Estergon,_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-03,_DD_75-77_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Estergon Castle, Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 08:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too blurry. Sorry, no QI for me. --Alexander-93 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try, please, have a new look --Poco a poco 09:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree with Alexander-93 as the ornaments are way too blurry (even though 1/320 ist not that long). @Poco a poco: You have so many wonderful images, so I wonder why you want to have this image as QI in your collection. --D-Kuru 21:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Except for a small area in the center it's way too blurry (apparently from camera shake). --Plozessor 05:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Zitadelle_von_Calvi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Citadel of Calvi --Christof46 09:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Some people here will ask for perspective correction. Otherwise good --Benjism89 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Where is it incorrect?--Christof46 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Some buildings are slightly leaning in on the right (the building on the citadel on the right, and some of the buildings in the right foreground). But it's really small and I'm not a big fan of perspective correction anyway, so I'll promote this and see if someone objects. --Benjism89 12:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right side completly blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Large aperture (F 2,8) so the foreground is indeed out of focus. But the subject of this picture is the citadel, so I think having a blurred foreground is an acceptable choice as long as the citadel is sharp. --Benjism89 10:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment A lot of picture of landscape are far away better. --Sebring12Hrs 17:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part is razor sharp while right ca. 1500 pixels are really blurred. Don't know why it was taken with 1/3200 s, probably higher f-number with longer exposure would have been better. --Plozessor 05:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:View_from_Château_de_Castelnau-Bretenoux_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prudhomat (Lot, France) - View of the northern part of the hamlet of Castelnau from Castelnau-Bretenoux castle --Benjism89 07:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Can you check the perspective, please? In particular the left horizontals aren't flat. --Mike Peel 16:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, horizontals aren't flat, they are leaning in one direction on the left and in the other direction on the right (less visible because it's behind the tree). That's hard to avoid when you have buildings on both sides of a wide angle picture and the façades of those are not parallel to one another, and I don't think it can or needs to be corrected (horizontal PC is necessary IMO only when the picture is centered on the façade on one single building). --Benjism89 13:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I think a correction is needed here, particularly for the left-hand building that seems very tilted in the photograph but presumably isn't so tilted in reality. I'm marking it as oppose for now, feel free to take this to discussion to get other opinions, or I'm happy to look at a new version. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, taking this to CR. Even if horizontal PC was a good idea here, it's impossible because the façade of the building on the left is not parallel (in real life) to the ones of the other buildings. I've verified this on the map : the URL doesn't work on this page but you can get a link to where I was, looking northeast, in the image description. The façade of the Eglise Collégiale Saint-Louis (behind the tree in the photo) clearly isn't parallel to that of the left foreground building. When you take a picture at the corner of two streets, you can't have the horizontals IRL of both façades of the corner building horizontal in your picture, because the two façades are not parallel : same thing here. By the way, it looks like the building on the left doesn't have a regular shape in reality (look at an aerial view), which may confuse you. --Benjism89 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because it's too dark, I'd change the gradiation curve to brighten the midtones. Perspective isn't optimal but that's because it was taken from a high angle and still verticals are supposed to be vertical, which can't work better than it was done here. --Plozessor 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ Done New version uploaded with brightened midtones. --Benjism89 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a shame I visited this castle this year and it's a very beautiful place ! But verticals should be a bit more... vertical. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which ones are not vertical ? --Benjism89 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support I can see some walls tilted a bit, but anyway I like this picture. --Sebring12Hrs 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me now. As said, a picture from a high angle with 'fixed verticals' will always look a bit distorted. Also in these old buildings there's usually nothing really vertical or horizontal. --Plozessor 05:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Kapelle-Wemeldinge,_de_Promotion_van_Dagevos_Shipping_in_het_industriegebied_IMG_3672_2024-07-14_13.52.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wemeldinge Zeeland-NL, ship (the Promotion) of Dagevos Shipping in the industrial area --Michielverbeek 07:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nothing is really in focus. No QI for me. Sorry --Alexander-93 09:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please realize the f-value is f/11 to avoid unsharp parts in the photo and at the same time I did not centralize the sharpness to a specific part of the photo --Michielverbeek 08:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe white balance a bit too warm, but nonetheless QI in this version imho. --Tuxyso 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for current version, too blurry/soft. But as you seem to have a current version of Photoshop, I think this picture could greatly benefit from AI denoise at 100 % + sharpening in CameraRaw. --Plozessor 11:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Peter_church_in_Sermages_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Peter church in Sermages, Nievre, France. --Tournasol7 06:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CAs around roof may be fixable. --Scotch Mist 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment What you call CAs is in effect a remnant of its removal. I can't do any better, but it seems to me to be so minor as to be irrelevant to this nomination. --Tournasol7 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo, good quality  Support --Michielverbeek 07:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Imo, artefact running along top edge of roof (to left of clock) and 'capturing' a pigeon undermines the quality of the image but should be 'fixable'- other artefacts on sky\building interfaces are probably acceptable. --Scotch Mist 07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed and not too sharp. I guess these 'artefacts' at the edges are results of sharpening or processing. --Plozessor 11:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA revoval artefacts are minor IMO, and sharpness is OK. But this image is underexposed, needs brightening. --Benjism89 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Camiseta_Brasil_1966_A74275720241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brazil 1966 T-shirt. --Rjcastillo 02:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, should be brightened / constrast stretched. --Plozessor 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now, thx. --Plozessor 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Camiseta_Brasil_1962_A74275920241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brazil 1962 T-shirt. --Rjcastillo 02:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, should be brightened / constrast stretched. --Plozessor 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now, thx. --Plozessor 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I removed your opposing vote because you certainly did not try to vote twice. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Sint_Petrus_en_Paulus_mosaic_in_Amsterdam.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sint Petrus en Paulus mosaic in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Amsterdam. --Reda Kerbouche 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Size vs. Quality - too much of the first, too less of the last --PtrQs 00:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your comment, I want other opinions. --Reda Kerbouche 08:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is razor sharp at lower resolutions, we should not punish people for following the "do not downscale" rule. --Plozessor 07:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Nearly any picture declined for lacking sharpness you can make razor sharp when looking at in 1024x800px.
      Once more the same discussion whenever a new 'better' technology comes up. This one we had, when the first Hasselblads came up with their 50Mp sensors: What's the use of more data/pixels when the increase of data does not result in more information, so it is irrelevant?
      What will happen when I take a 50Mp picture under bad circumstances, e.g. I need to raise the ISO to senseless values so the the result is noisy and patchy? Then no reviewer will suppose 'look at it in smaller size'. It will be declined for technical reasons.
      The camera in this case can do acceptable picture when being used under good light conditions. But when used in dark surrounding, tests show that some 'intelligent' software tends to replace missing information with algorithm fantasies. Some day even mobile cameras will be able to take good pics under not ideal conditions.
      But I see no sense in ignoring QI guidelines just because of advertisments promising fancy technology making perfect pictures. --PtrQs 12:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
       Comment This is not about 1024x800px, which would be irrelevant, because it is below the minimum size for a QI. However, the image looks absolutely sharp at 6 MPx and only very slightly blurry at 15 MPx, even though it is quite blurry at full scale. Therefore, at least in my opinion, this is good enough. Wishing you a happy new year --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
       Comment Per Robert, I didn't support because it's sharp at 1024 x 800 but because it's sharp at adequate resolution, "sharp enough for an A4-size print" as Smial would say. Otherwise, my criteria for evaluating QI is usually whether the photographer did something wrong. If a picture taken under low light conditions in a dark museum has NR artefacts at 24 MP due high ISO then it might be acceptable, if the same picture has camera shake because the photographer chose too low ISO then not, even though both images may look the same at low resolution. Picture with "NR artefacts due high ISO" taken in bright sunlight is not acceptable even though it might be the same quality as the acceptable image from the museum.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:20240707_ruby_throated_hummingbird_bafflin_sanctuary_PD204642_26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male Ruby-throated Hummingbird. Bafflin Audubon Sanctuary. Pomfret, CT USA --Pdanese 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rbrechko 01:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low contrast, very small DOF --PtrQs 02:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't have the original RAW file (nor the corresponding TIF), so I think this one is dead. Thanks for the suggestions. Also, sorry for putting my comment in the middle...placing it at the bottom was giving an error. -- Pdanese (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PtrQs, at least the contrast is probably fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 06:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus appears to be too far away from the camera (on the white and brownish feathers). This photo might be also overprocessed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:20240724_red_tailed_hawk_casa_PD207545_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-tailed Hawk, scanning. Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 20:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Blur the branch behind the Hawk's head. --Tzim78 22:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I had considered blurring those leaves, but I'm not sure that's allowed here. Thanks for the comment. --Pdanese 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was asked to do something similar, these are common requests..--Tzim78 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is very good. The branch is annoying but acceptable since it's not concealing the bird. Personally I would retouch the branch. --Plozessor 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment He thought he could not do that, I also told him to retouch it.--Tzim78 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I uploaded a new, re-touched version. Thanks for the suggestions.Pdanese (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
👍 --Plozessor 04:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO this should be marked as a retouched picture with template {{Retouched picture}}. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've already categorized it under retouched picture. Or do you mean something else?
       Support Good quality and a happy new year! The appropriate template was added by Sebring12Hrs. The category should not be added manually. I removed it, because it comes with the template anyway. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thank you. Happy new year. -- Pdanese (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment Done. --Sebring12Hrs 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_Eusébio_A74277220241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eusébio Footprints Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image obviously comes from a museum. More information as to what it is and its significance needs to be in thw image description. Also, are there no copyright issues with this image? Please discuss. --GRDN711 03:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment These are tributes to different footballers (the majority of Brazilian nationality). These pieces can be photographed indicated by the same people responsible for the collection that are in the Maracaná stadium, Rio de Janeiro. If anyone can provide support on the topic, thank you in advance. --Rjcastillo 00:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per COM:QIC this image needs a complete and accurate description on the file page. The issue of copyright should also be addressed. --GRDN711 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now with changes. --GRDN711 19:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of the perspective. Should IMO be rotated so that the text is horizontal. --Plozessor 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is something very strange with the focus at left. There is an area completly out of focus and then it is in focus. There is no transition between the two areas. I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 13:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks, Plozessor/Sebring12Hrs. --Rjcastillo 21:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Text is still not horizontal. --Plozessor 11:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:3_Zinnen_Dolomites_ski_resort_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hasenköpfl chair lift, Helm/Monte Elmo, 3 Zinnen Dolomites ski resort. --Kallerna 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is very disturbing, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadowy part is too dark. Can probably be fixed with different raw conversion settings. --Plozessor 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the shadow -- Spurzem 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the juxtaposition of the sun and shadow parts, it makes the picture more vivid and interesting, and the shadow is not critically dark IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Realistic colors and light. --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem.--Ermell 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Pic is fine --GoldenArtists 09:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I cannot see a reason to oppose here... The photo has a very high detail quality, looks good to me. --Tuxyso 11:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco, Plozessor and Spurzem. --GRDN711 19:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ekaterina (the shadow is an essential part of the scene) --PtrQs 01:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem, Plozessor and others --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadow is disturbing but its QI, not FP. --PetarM 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Milseburg 16:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 16:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 25 Dec → Thu 02 Jan
  • Thu 26 Dec → Fri 03 Jan
  • Fri 27 Dec → Sat 04 Jan
  • Sat 28 Dec → Sun 05 Jan
  • Sun 29 Dec → Mon 06 Jan
  • Mon 30 Dec → Tue 07 Jan
  • Tue 31 Dec → Wed 08 Jan
  • Wed 01 Jan → Thu 09 Jan
  • Thu 02 Jan → Fri 10 Jan