Commons:Quality images candidates

(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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 October 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 17 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

edit

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

How to ask for consensual review

edit

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

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

Consensual review rules

edit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

edit

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


October 17, 2024

edit

October 16, 2024

edit

October 15, 2024

edit

October 14, 2024

edit

October 13, 2024

edit

October 12, 2024

edit

October 11, 2024

edit

October 10, 2024

edit

October 9, 2024

edit

October 8, 2024

edit

October 7, 2024

edit

October 6, 2024

edit

October 5, 2024

edit

October 4, 2024

edit

October 2, 2024

edit

October 1, 2024

edit

September 30, 2024

edit

September 29, 2024

edit

September 24, 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:Соборная_мечеть_(деталь)_в_Санкт-Петербурге,_Россия_2H1A4281WI.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Minaret (by Kora27) --FBilula 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pixelation in the sky should be improved --Poco a poco 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support But subject is clear QI, its not FP nomine. --PetarM 17:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Overruling reviews of other users is not a best practice. Moving to CR --Poco a poco 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didnt saw you put a vote !? That is not overruling. --PetarM 18:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
But Poco commented already on an issue, it's not common to simply promote an image where someone else pointed out an issue already. --Plozessor 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with PetarM, if we don't want an edit on an image, we have to write it. If PetarM thinks the image is good like that, he have to vote ! Because in the other way, the edit will be probably done by the nominator. --Sebring12Hrs 17:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. --Plozessor 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mating_pair_of_Cigaritis_vulcanus_-_Common_Silverline.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Mating pair of Cigaritis vulcanus - Common Silverline. By User:Sarpitabose --Atudu 12:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of DOF (see head of the lower butterfly) - elsewhere a beautiful picture --Grunpfnul 18:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The head on the left is slightly out of focus, but you can see it's because it's positioned slightly to the back. The right head and both abdomens are in focus, so the most important parts are sharp, and the out of focus bit isn't that bad, and circumstantial rather than through a mistake of the photographer. You get a low DOF for macro shots like these, and I think we should be slightly more charitable towards those circumstances. ReneeWrites 18:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Renee. --Plozessor 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Blühendes_Barock_-_Schüssele-See_01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Schüssele Lake with fountain, Blühendes Barock, Ludwigsburg, Germany --Llez 04:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    CA in the top of the tree --Michielverbeek 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the hint --Llez 11:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, it's looking better, QI for me now. --Michielverbeek 06:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergerac_-_Place_Pélissière_&_Église_Saint-Jacques_-_1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bergerac (Dordogne, France) - Pélissière square and St James church --Benjism89 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sensordust --Grunpfnul 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't find any dust spots, where are they? --Plozessor 08:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, few dust spots. --Plozessor 08:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I see a few birds in the sky, which are pretty blurry. I don't think, that it makes the picture unusable. -- Spurzem 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
No issue with the birds, but there are clear round dust spots. --Plozessor 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just uploaded a new file with the dust spots removed. Hope they are all gone. --Benjism89 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support So it seems, good now! --Plozessor 03:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergerac_-_Quai_Salvette_-_05.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bergerac (Dordogne, France) - Quai Salvette (former harbour), view from the east --Benjism89 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose i disagree - sensor dust in the sky --Grunpfnul 18:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple dust spots. --Plozessor 08:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I just uploaded a new file with the dust spots removed. Hope they are all gone. --Benjism89 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Plozessor 03:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At Geneva 2024 472 - SBB RABDe 500 Interior.jpg

edit

  • Nomination SBB RABDe 500 Interior at Genève-Aéroport railway station --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights and overprocessed. Looks like a mobile phone shot. --Peulle 09:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It is a mobile phone shot, but that should be taken into account when assesing for QI. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Is it OK to discuss this one? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed smartphone picture. Smartphones can take acceptable pictures in good light conditions, but this was taken with ISO 640 and is blurry and lacking detail. --Plozessor 05:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Btw, also filename. --Plozessor 05:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
File renamed, not sure there's much more I can do. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad for a smart phone. I'm always willing to accept compromises in difficult lighting conditions or action shots, especially when it comes to image noise, but too much detail has been lost here due to the noise reduction. --Smial 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Ruislip_Lido_2024_072.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ruislip Lido Railway No. 7 Graham Alexander on the turntable --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Perspective warp. --Peulle 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Lens profile corrected, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, this still needs perspective correction. Right side is clearly leaning out (see the "sitesafe" at the edge). Then, right side is also lower than left side. Both can be fixed easily with Photoshop's "skew" and "perspective" functions or similar in other tools. Also, it is obvious (especially from the "sitesafe") that there was some AI processing in place; however, I would accept that if the perspective was fixed. --Plozessor 09:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that helps. New version uploaded with the perspective redone. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, acceptable now! --Plozessor 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 Question Is there any way to get the cropped left foot of back in the frame changing the aspect ration and cropping more from the bottom? --MB-one 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Peter_Abbey_of_Marcilhac-sur-Cele_14.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Saint Peter Abbey of Marcilhac-sur-Cele (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support It might be a bit deformed, but verticals are straight. Good enough for QI imo --Michielverbeek 06:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Soory but I disagree, unrealistic proportions due to heavy PC. --Benjism89 18:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. Just shrink the upper part a bit in 3 or 4 steps, then it would look fine. --Plozessor 09:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mainroth_Bahnstrecke_Bamberg–Hof-20240815-RM-172833.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bamberg-Hof railroad line Aerial view --Ermell 04:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose This is far below your usual quality, it's quite grainy and with low detail. Looks a bit like horizontal camera shake and an attempt to fix that with sharpening. --Plozessor 04:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The view into the distance is blurred by the compressed air. The image is already sharpened to the maximum. I don't want to overdo it. --Ermell 08:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems to be overprocessed or oversharpened. --Sebring12Hrs 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:زاوية_بن_صميم.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ben smim village, Michlifen dam, with agricultural lands and oak forest. --User:Mounir Neddi 21:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough imo --Michielverbeek 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I think it's sharp enough for a landscape. Let's get another opinion User:Mounir Neddi 10:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Quite soft. Also, looks tilted CW. And there's no description (see point 2 in the Guidelines).--Peulle 11:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that the description could be in any language (here it's situated at the right side of info template) since we have the category in English. But the image itself is far from QI. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Description is ok (it's just in Arabic and is displayed right-aligned). Quality is borderline but IMO above the bar. --Plozessor 03:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Val_Montanaia.jpg

edit

  • Nomination View on Val Montanaia and the "campanile" in the Parco naturale delle Dolomiti Friulane (Q683241) By User:Scosse --Civvì 08:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Phyrexian 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Looks good but also heavily downsized. --Milseburg 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the camera is capable of a massive 60MP and this is only 6. A missed opportunity for a spectacular landscape shot.--Peulle 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still 6 MP and razor-sharp and otherwise perfect. --Plozessor 07:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I have become quite tolerant of the application of the downsample rule, but I would not water it down so much. --Milseburg 09:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still good. --Sebring12Hrs 11:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsampling is specifically against the image guidelines. If people want to ignore that rule there should be a discussion around changing the guidelines, but as it stands this image is ineligible. BigDom 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment We don't even know whether this image has been downsampled, it could as well be cropped.
 Comment If it is a crop, the author has to ask himself why he chose a setting that was far too large when taking the photo. In his portfolio, all images are smaller than the camera allows.--Milseburg 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Milseburg: Yes, that's right. Still, unsure what to do. Yes, if you take the QI guidelines to the letter, downsampling is listed as undesired. On the other hand, even if downsampled, this picture is by far better than many other pictures that are promoted QI. This is a basic issue with QI anyway, see the discussion here. A picture taken with a 60 MP professional camera and then downscaled to 20 MP, be it as perfect and razor-sharp as can be, is not QI because it's downscaled, while a slightly blurry and washed out 12 MP picture of the same scene taken with a smartphone is QI because it's not downscaled. --Plozessor (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Additional comment: The author could simply remove the EXIF data, then we wouldn't know that it's downscaled and would gladly promote it ... --Plozessor 03:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
These are all arguments you can use against continuing to use the guideline. You have to do that on the general discussion page. It's not the first time. We still have the guidline. We have to evaluate images here that were taken with very different performance devices. I think it's entirely appropriate that users of high-quality devices are subject to corresponding requirements. Here it looks to me as if the author has scaled the image down to make it appear better quality, especially in terms of sharpness. It must also be remembered that the author is not the nominator. The author could have downscaled it out of indifference to receiving a QI award. Or he is keeping the high-resolution original in reserve for possible sale. We don't know. It is questionable for me that professionals have to put in less effort to operate their expensive cameras than amateurs with small devices.--Milseburg (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I did mention that "on the general discussion page", but no one responded... --Plozessor 08:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The last discussion about that I remenber you can found here: Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 21#Again: downsized candidates --Milseburg 09:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to intervene, I will try to contact the author to ask if they are willing to upload a better resolution version of this photo. This is often an issue with users who only participate to WL* contests but I think this picture deserves the attempt. Many thanks! --Civvì 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At Geneva 2024 470 - Tram at Ponts de l'Île.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Tram at Ponts de l'Île, Geneva --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unclear subject of photo. If it's the tram then it's not very prominent. --AVDLCZ 09:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The image, description and categories mention both the tram and the bridge's name. And the picture clearly shows the bridge with a tram on it. --ArildV 10:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If we're strict then the file name does not meet the requirements in Commons:File naming (like most of Mike's pictures). I suggest to rename at least the QI candidates to something meaningful. Otherwise, this is a smartphone picture of borderline quality, but IMO it would be above the bar. I would support it with a proper filename. --Plozessor (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thx, otherwise the picture is good (at least for a smartphone image). --Plozessor 09:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 09:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

File:DB_Premium_Lounge,_Berlin_(LRM_20210709_165042-RR).jpg

edit

  • Nomination DB Premium Lounge Berlin Hauptbahnhof --MB-one 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose overexposed roof --GiovanniPen 12:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Most of the ceiling is fine. Some bright spots are unavoidable and not disturbing here. --MB-one 13:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ceiling isn't over-exposed, it's just very bright. There are no areas where it's completely white like you would normally see when a photo is over-exposed. ReneeWrites 10:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposure is perfectly fine. Picture is also very good otherwise, except that it's slightly tilted. That is easy to fix though. --Plozessor 16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 18:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now!
  •  Support Good now ! --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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