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 September 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 September 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 September 22 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

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]] 09:26, 22 September 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


September 22, 2023[edit]

September 21, 2023[edit]

September 20, 2023[edit]

September 19, 2023[edit]

September 18, 2023[edit]

September 17, 2023[edit]

September 16, 2023[edit]

September 15, 2023[edit]

September 14, 2023[edit]

September 13, 2023[edit]

September 12, 2023[edit]

September 11, 2023[edit]

September 10, 2023[edit]

September 09, 2023[edit]

September 08, 2023[edit]

September 07, 2023[edit]

September 06, 2023[edit]

September 05, 2023[edit]

September 02, 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:CH.ZG.Zug_2023-03-31_Zugersee_6586b_3x2-R_6K.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Storm Mathis above lake Zug in Switzerland. By User:Roy Egloff --Yann 08:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose impressive shot with high documentary value and wow factor - noise and detail level not on QI level, sorry --Virtual-Pano 09:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree There is some loss of detail due to the high ISO setting, but this setting is unavoidable due to lighting conditions. The result is amazingly good and the image is easily printable in good quality A4 size. --Smial 12:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Virtual-Pano --F. Riedelio 07:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:L'allée_piétonne_du_cours_Fauriel_en_face_Manufrance.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Cours Fauriel pedestrian way at en:Saint-Étienne, France. --Touam 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Image rotated clockwise --Nino Verde 08:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Hi, thank you for your review, I've upload a new version. Is that ok like that ? --Touam 05:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 08:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Not i focus. --Kirill Borisenko 17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Firenze_-_Cattedrale_di_Santa_Maria_del_Fiore_-_2023-09-18_12-39-12_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence-Anna.Massini 10:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Image is a bit rotated to left --Nino Verde 13:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)✓ DoneDone. Thank you Anna.Massini 14:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For now, visible compression artifacts. Switch to pro if file shows no visible artifacts --PantheraLeo1359531 14:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 CommentI'm sorry, but where do you see compression artifacts? What should I do?Anna.Massini 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info Especially at areas with higher contrast or at edges. Did you export the image at highest JPEG quality? This avoids any visible artifacts. 853 KiB for 10 Megapixels is an indicator, better would be around 4 megabytes :). (If we exaggerate the contrast in this image, the artifacts would be very prominent, which shows the limitied post-processing potential of this image, which is sad) --PantheraLeo1359531 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Hopefully a RAW file was saved or an original unprocessed JPG exists with better quality settings so that a better export is possible, because the composition and lighting are really beautiful in this photo. --Smial 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low level of detail, lack of structure even on the buildings in the foreground --Virtual-Pano 07:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Virtual-Pano --Jakubhal 12:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_Vision_EQXX,_IAA_Open_Space_2023,_Munich_(P1120189).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX at IAA Open Space 2023, Munich --MB-one 12:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Liridon 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad composition. People around are superfluous. --Kirill Borisenko 20:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kirill. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 09:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, bad surroundings, too tight crop -- Spurzem 13:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Cargo_tricycle,_IAA_Summit_2023,_Munich_(P1110737).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dumper tricycle at IAA Summit 2023 in Munich, Germany --MB-one 07:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --1municipio 08:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the man in the background --Charlesjsharp 08:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, unfortunately he's very distracting in this context. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Furthermore the lighting is not the best. -- Spurzem 08:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed and disturbing person. --F. Riedelio 07:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Kalyazin_Bell_tower_of_St._Nicholas_Cathedral_2023-07-21_7077.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kalyazin Bell tower of St. Nicholas Cathedral --Mike1979 Russia 07:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --1municipio 08:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Bad light conditions, main subject restored from shadows, agressively noise reducted which cause details loss and aome aquarelle effect. --Nino Verde 09:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Dramatic and beautiful to me, irrespective of the techniques used. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting, probably an early morning shot would have been better. --Smial 11:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: The object is underexposed. --F. Riedelio 07:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_цистерна_ЗиЛ-130_на_Омаровой_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ZiL-130 tank truck at Omarova street. Almaty, Kazakhstan. --Красный 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion There is a strong chromatic aberration on the back edge of a truck, that needs to be fixed --Jakubhal 04:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Tried to fix it. Note that I'm colorblind and relay only on automatic fixes as I don't see the chromatic aberration. Красный 05:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
     Neutral There were more. I fixed them for you. However, as I prepared part of the correction, I would like to refrain from voting and let others decide if it is good enough. --Jakubhal 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA are still present. This can be fixed when you converting your file from RAW. But there are some more problems like noise, looks like your camera set incorrect ISO for such sunny day. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Head_of_a_woman_wearing_a_white_cap_-_Vincent_Van_Gogh.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Head of a woman wearing a white cap - Vincent Van Gogh --GoldenArtists 07:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree as the upper third of the frame is blurred, DoF issue --Virtual-Pano 08:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Münsing-Holzhausen_Kirchbergstraße_10_014_2023_04_25.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Catholic parish church St. Johann Baptist und Georg, built 1470, pulpit
    --F. Riedelio 06:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp due to noise. --Sebring12Hrs 08:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ New version Improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 13:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I would have done a little less noise reduction, but overall the result is acceptable also because of the quite high image resolution. --Smial 11:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Railway_Carriage_at_the_National_Shooting_Centre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former Bisley Camp Station --Hemmers 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Blown sky to the left, questionable crop, unsharp corners. --C messier 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Blown sky is somewhat inevitable where sun is in/near frame - per guidelines, the subject (and majority of sky) are well exposed, blown corner is appropriate to "sun dappled" composition. Unsharp corners are as expected for 18mm. I have adjusted the crop to lose the distracting sign (which snuck back in when fixing CA). The crop loses some of the unsharp corner on right. --Hemmers 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are technics to avoid have the sky overexposed to the point that eats away small branches. I really don't think that a 18mm lens is supposed to have visible unsharp corners in preview size. The problem with the crop is to the left, as you can see the building ends, but its small end part is cropped. --C messier 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop: The left corner of the main building is missing, whereas on the right, there is a useless corner of a second building. Turn the camera just a little to the left and you are fine. --Palauenc05 07:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Highlights blown, severe magenta COM:CA. -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 23:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:G-Class,_IAA_Open_Space_2023,_Munich_(P1120148).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prototype of the all-electric G-Class at IAA Open Space 2023, Munich --MB-one 07:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --C messier 09:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The front of the car isn'tvery sharp and there are some blown out highlights. There is also a purple line on the roof of the car. I think we need others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The image was taken under unfavorable conditions. The transition from the front of the vehicle to the bright people in the background is poor. In addition, the reflections of passers-by in the side windows of the car are annoying. It is one of those cases where a quality image is hardly possible. -- Spurzem 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Really interesting-looking paint job, so a good motif, and maybe a valued image, but  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 23:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 23:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rolls-Royce_Spectre_IAA_2023_1X7A0749.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rolls-Royce Spectre at BMW World Munich 2023.--Alexander-93 07:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The reason for discuss is that I disagree with myself, the quality is great; the noise is handled remarkably well in these dark conditions and it seems to be sharp enough, but it's take in portrait so I want other reviewers' opinions and also maybe a reason for the framing which would help determinate to support or oppose. --多多123 10:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I have made a crop suggestion as a note - pls delete after viewing --Virtual-Pano 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the first version better, but a QI either way. -- Ikan Kekek 23:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 23:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:20221017_Wasserturm_Neu-Ulm_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View up at the water tower in Neu-Ulm --FlocciNivis 07:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose the tree --Charlesjsharp 09:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support We can't erase things which exist, it also adds to the image showing the dynamic range in the image. Therefore, I vote support, but a different image would be needed to be used in an article regarding the tower or for VI. There are no visible flaws in the quality either. --多多123 10:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. There are a few small things that could be criticized in a purely technical assessment of the photo: On the sunlit side, the bright areas are slightly overexposed, I would like to see a correction. Borderline. DOF is a bit tight if you expect such a shot to be crisp from front to back. But I'll take that as an intentional design to emphasize the leaves of the tree, which contribute quite decisively to the pretty composition. --Smial 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
    • Thank you for the detailed review. I appreciate it! And I reduced the exposure of the bright areas now a bit --FlocciNivis 17:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I always try to provide comprehensible reasons. They may sometimes not literally follow the rigid (or frozen?) rules, but I don't expect everyone to follow my arguments either. Thanks for the revision of the image, I'll delete the "weak" then. --Smial 11:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty leaves, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Wat_Arun_Interior.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Arun Interior --Rangan Datta Wiki 07:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good enough for a 16.2MPx D7000, could've been better if you were standing more to the left. --多多123 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Noticeable CAs and needs tilt/perspective correction (right side leaning in) --C messier 14:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me, without prejudice toward C messier's remarks. -- Ikan Kekek 23:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and perspective has already been mentioned - additionally monk and buddha are slightly blurred - overall not a QI from my point of view --Virtual-Pano 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Virtual-Pano 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:St_Paul's_Cathedral_West_Facade_Night_2020.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination West facade of St. Paul's Cathedral at nightploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2023. --Julian Herzog 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 07:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose It may be nice and artistic, but given the clearly distorted perspective and also lots of dustspots, I don't see how it's a quality image. --A.Savin 11:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin --Milseburg 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky looks pretty clean to me, the perspective is obviously intentional, and I think we should respect the artistic intention of the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I fixed the dust spots. The perspective looks unnatural if corrected in my opinion, from that short distance, but completely understand differing opinions on that. --Julian Herzog 07:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals to be straightened, see Image guidelines --Palauenc05 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is very interesting and would be destroyed by modification of verticals. --KaiBorgeest 22:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)--
  •  Support Per Ikan --Jakubhal 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Given the ultra wide nature of the photo, IMHO converging verticals are OK. --C messier 16:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Neuaue,_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg_(P1090361).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Meadow orchard on Neuaue in Ginsheim --MB-one 15:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Is there no way to id the tree? --Poco a poco 05:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    Sadly, I'm not a botanist. Only know, that it's a fruit bearing tree (apple, pear, cherry, etc.). --MB-one 13:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 08:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the id is required for QI --Poco a poco 19:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The family has been identified. --MB-one 14:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment To my understanding, we need the species or at least the genus. -- Ikan Kekek 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that the genus should be known at least. However, this image was taken rather late (May 9) and I can see a few relatively large pinkish flowers. So this might be an apple tree. The level of detail is a bit low, however. Nevertheless, there are at least two good ways for confirmation. If someone lives close enough to the location where this photograph was taken, they might just go there and take another photo of the tree and also a closeup of some of its apples. Or it might be possible to ask for an opinion on an identification page, such as this one on the German Wikipedia. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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