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 December 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 December 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 December 30 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]] 22:42, 30 December 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).


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 22, 2024

[edit]

December 21, 2024

[edit]

December 20, 2024

[edit]

December 19, 2024

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

December 13, 2024

[edit]

December 10, 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: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)

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)

File:Crocus_chrysanthus_Prins_Claus_2023-03-17_1221.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Insect on Crocus flower in Poland (by Salicyna) --Gpkp 18:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too small. Sorry. --Ermell 21:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The guidelines only say: Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information. There is no minimum of file size. --PtrQs 02:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution is fine but it's not sharp enough / lacking DoF and the bee's head is crushed black. --Plozessor 06:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Ludwig_(Munich).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Ludwig (Munich) --AuHaidhausen 09:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    (Repeat my comment to your previous nomination of this image) Distorted due to perspective correction. Bad bottom crop. Do you have better version? --Екатерина Борисова 01:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do not have any more photos, but we can also ask others, thank you.--AuHaidhausen 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC/tilt is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 13:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective corresponds to the natural feeling and in my opinion does not need to be corrected. But the light comes from the wrong side and therefore the photo is not a QI for me. -- Spurzem 17:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, the building is falling backward with this perspective, what is natural with that ? --Sebring12Hrs 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Bombus_terrestris_2018-09-12_0020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Buff-tailed bumblebee in Poland (by Salicyna) --Gpkp 18:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not big enough. Sorry. --Ermell 21:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution is borderline but it's also too dark (crushed shadows) and lacking DoF. --Plozessor 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too small. --Sebring12Hrs 23:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment the guidelines only say: Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information. There is no minimum for file size. --PtrQs 02:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too small DoF. --PtrQs 02:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_8e_-_Église_de_la_Madeleine_-_Statue_du_Christ_Sauveur_(Francisque_Duret).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paris 8e - Église de la Madeleine - Statue du Christ Sauveur (Francisque Duret) (by Romainbehar) --Sebring12Hrs 00:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 07:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilted and needs (further) noise reduction before it can be promoted IMO. --Benjism89 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Benjism89: Please do not reset anything with a vote to "Nomination" unless the vote is invalid. You might (temporarily) oppose instead and set to "Discuss". Reset to "Promotion" because I do not wish to oppose either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry. This picture is very good, but I'm temporarily voting  Oppose because I think the two issues I raised (tilt and high noise) need to be adressed. --~~~~
  •  Comment Alright, but could you please correct the signature? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my invalid signature, I didn't have access to a computer for the past few days and editing this page on a mobile phone is challenging ... --Benjism89 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Invalid vote lacking a signature was stricken. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good (now). --Plozessor 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Voting again because my first vote was invalid. This picture is really good, but there are two easily fixable issues : tilt (the lines in the background are vertical on the left but leaning on the right : I don't think PC is needed for this picture but verticals should be leaning symetrically on both sides) and noise in the background (visible even at 598x1024px). --Benjism89 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Бывший_песчаный_карьер_в_Павлово.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake, Pavlovo, Kirovsky district (by Olga1969) --FBilula 13:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Lots of CAs at the edges, but that could be fixable. --AVDLCZ 20:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Why is this here without a vote? Anyway,  Oppose due CA per AVDLCZ. --Plozessor 08:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the corners --PtrQs 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Brive-la-Gaillarde_-_Collégiale_Saint-Martin_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brive-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze, France) - St. Martin's collegiate church - The nave --Benjism89 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 08:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are blown highlights, but on a small portion of the picture. Taking a picture inside a dark church without the light entering through the windows being blown is hard, and I think it's acceptable as long as the windows are not the main subject / don't represent a significant proportion of the picture. So I'd like to read other opinions. --Benjism89 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the windows are completely blown (not only overexposed), and they are the very central part of the image (contrary to other church pictures where the altar is in focus and there are blown windows only on the side). Also the overall quality isn't perfect (not too sharp and with low detail). Both issues alone could probably be overlooked, but the combination is too much IMO. --Plozessor 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Brive-la-Gaillarde_-_Collégiale_Saint-Martin_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brive-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze, France) - St. Martin's collegiate church - The nave --Benjism89 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Blown windows. Sorry. --Ermell 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, there are blown highlights, but on a small portion of the picture. Taking a picture inside a dark church without the light entering through the windows being blown is hard, and I think it's acceptable as long as the windows are not the main subject / don't represent a significant proportion of the picture. So I'd like to read other opinions. --Benjism89 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Plozessor said on the other picture. Both issues, but the biggest is the overall lack of sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 19:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:44, 29 December 2024 (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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_de_Alex_A74275820241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alex's Footprints Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not enough to make and upload an image. Per COM:QIC, for this picture to be valuable for use in Wikimedia and other projects, this image must have an accurate description on the file page of what it is. It should state that these are hand and feet imprints of notable footballers? Whose imprints are they? – please provide the popular name/formal name of the footballer. Where are they found? - Calçada da Fama do Maracanã (Maracanã Walk of Fame) at the Jornalista Mário Filho Stadium in Maracanã, Brazil? Also, is posting an image of these imprints permissible under the copyright laws of Brazil? --GRDN711 18:54, 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)
  •  Support This one is ok. --Plozessor 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top is blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 13:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_de_Leônidas_A74275620241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Footprints of Leônidas Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per COM:QIC this image needs a complete and accurate description on the file page. The issue of copyright should also be addressed. --GRDN711 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now with changes. For an image uploaded to Commons with the intention that it find utility at other sites (rather than collecting digital dust); it must be well described and categorized per COM:QIC so it can be searched and found. --GRDN711 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of the perspective. Should IMO be rotated so that the text is horizontal. --Plozessor 16:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the only part in focus is the name tag, but not the Footprints --PtrQs 01:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per PtrQs, not in focus enough. --Sebring12Hrs 13:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:34, 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)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Karaköy_desde_el_puente_de_Gálata,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_93.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karaköy from the Galata Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much/not enough bridge, too much sky. Overall bad crop. --Kallerna 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Poor judgement. Adding the fishing rods (and therefore some sky) was intentional and a valid composition. Yours is no reason to decline a picture for QI. --Poco a poco 21:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's a valid composition, using the bridge as kind of frame. However, this should be somehow mentioned in the description. Now it just says "Karaköy from the Galata Bridge", the bridge and fishermen are not mentioned at all. --Plozessor 06:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 23:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support unusual composition but OK for me. The only thing I do not like is the cutted ship at the very left. --Tuxyso 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 22 Dec → Mon 30 Dec
  • Mon 23 Dec → Tue 31 Dec
  • Tue 24 Dec → Wed 01 Jan
  • 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