Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that 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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


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.
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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


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.

  • 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 21 2020 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]] 22:28, 21 September 2020 (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 21, 2020[edit]

September 20, 2020[edit]

September 19, 2020[edit]

September 18, 2020[edit]

September 17, 2020[edit]

September 16, 2020[edit]

September 15, 2020[edit]

September 14, 2020[edit]

September 13, 2020[edit]

September 12, 2020[edit]

September 11, 2020[edit]

September 10, 2020[edit]

September 8, 2020[edit]

September 7, 2020[edit]

September 6, 2020[edit]

September 5, 2020[edit]

September 4, 2020[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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Marcinelle_-_Centre_de_délassement_-_piscine_-_2020_-_03.jpg[edit]

Marcinelle - Centre de délassement - piscine - 2020 - 03.jpg

  • Nomination Swimming pools in Marcinelle (Charleroi). --Jmh2o 12:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the sky is overcropped which caused perspective issues. --Vincent60030 10:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see a problem with the perspective. The bottom of the pool is not flat, but sloping and there is refraction of light on the surface of the water --Jmh2o 10:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apologies, I meant composition. Let's move this to discussion. --Vincent60030 11:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2014_Powiat_cieszyński,_Kończyce_Wielkie,_Drzewa_na_ulicy_Zamkowej.jpg[edit]

2014 Powiat cieszyński, Kończyce Wielkie, Drzewa na ulicy Zamkowej.jpg

  • Nomination Trees on Zamkowa Street. Kończyce Wielkie, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good enough for me, but category needs improving @Halavar: --Vincent60030 07:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --Vincent60030 14:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My understanding is that for QI, unless the trees are incidental to the photo, their species or at least genus needs to be included in the categories. -- Ikan Kekek 10:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:John_Crittenden_Duval_Centennial_Grave_Marker.jpg[edit]

John Crittenden Duval Centennial Grave Marker.jpg

  • Nomination John Crittenden Duval Texas Centennial historical grave marker in Oakwood Cemetery, Austin, Texas, U.S. By User:Nv8200pa --Another Believer 04:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below minimum resolution --Augustgeyler 09:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Minimum resolution is 2 megapixels, this image meets that threshold. --ReneeWrites 22:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Above the minimum resolution requirement, but below the QI bar. Better quality and resolution can be expected from the Camera used. There is no apparent reason to scale down.--Milseburg (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Marion_County_Texas_Centennial_Monument.jpg[edit]

Marion County Texas Centennial Monument.jpg

  • Nomination Marion County 1936 Texas Centennial Monument, Marion County Courthouse, Jefferson, Texas, U.S. By User:Nv8200pa --Another Believer 04:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficient quality. --Vincent60030 11:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low resolution --Augustgeyler 18:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A higher resolution is desirable so that the inscription is easier to read. The camera used would have to give that. --Milseburg 16:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 22:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 22:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jelgava_Churches_10.jpg[edit]

Jelgava Churches 10.jpg

  • Nomination High Altar Icons of Orthodox Cathedral in Jelgava --Scotch Mist 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough for quality image, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your review - lighting conditions and access are often far from ideal in churches but have attempted to slightly sharpen image and passed for the opinion of others --Scotch Mist 10:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting conditions may be hard for the photographer but should not be an argument for lower quality in our review. Perhaps you took out the best of it, but I still see too dark areas on the top an a low level of detail combined with significant file compression.--Augustgeyler 10:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jelgava_01.jpg[edit]

Jelgava 01.jpg

  • Nomination Sign-posted Way (on Lielā iela) into Jelgava, in Latvia, with Holy Trinity Tower on left --Scotch Mist 05:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture should be cropped if it is to describe the sign. --Vincent60030 07:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your review but do not agree the image should be cropped further as the first part of the sign refers to the Holy Trinity Church Tower which is visible on the left --Scotch Mist 08:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm how about we take this to discussion? The caption is not on point in this case. --Vincent60030 10:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the picture's fine, and doesn't need to be changed or cropped, though I think the description would be more accurate if it included the name of the street as well (it's part of the picture, after all). I would also like if the information about the church was included in the summary, and/or if the summary included information of that street or area generally, rather than a short history of the entire city. --ReneeWrites 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @ReneeWrites: Thank you for your constructive comment the details of which I have implemented --Scotch Mist 18:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is too much sky. Its cropped to hard at the bottom. The shadows are too dark due to hard lighting conditions. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: The first reviewer indicated that the image should be cropped further but your comment indicates that the image was cropped too hard at the bottom - these appear to be both opposing and subjective opinions and neither appear to reflect the 'balance' I intended being of course my own subjective opinion!:) --Scotch Mist 18:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Disagree with the above comment. --ReneeWrites 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----ReneeWrites 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_Giuseppe_Zanardelli_a_Salò.jpg[edit]

Monumento a Giuseppe Zanardelli a Salò.jpg

  • Nomination Detail monument to Giuseppe Zanardelli in Salò. --Moroder 00:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image quality. --Tagooty 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shoes are cropped --Augustgeyler 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Fischer.H 17:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image quality - IMO a tiny portion of missing shoe sole does not distract from the image of this impressive sculpture, dominated by Giuseppe's expressive head\face!--Scotch Mist 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll admit the cropping isn't ideal, but both shoes are shown in full, so the full figure is included in the picture. It seems like too small a thing to reject an otherwise good image for QI for that. --ReneeWrites 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --ReneeWrites 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Rutger_Termohlen,_Collin_van_der_Sluijs_&_Super_A_-_De_rat_2.png[edit]

Rutger Termohlen, Collin van der Sluijs & Super A - De rat 2.png

  • Nomination A mural depicting a large rat with several people with bird heads dancing around it --ReneeWrites 22:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is hanging a bit to the left --Michielverbeek 05:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure what you're referring to, all the verticals are straight as an arrow: https://imgur.com/a/NV93qjJ --ReneeWrites 19:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have added two notes. Left vertical is hanging a bit to the left (it looks like a hockey stick) and the right vertical is hanging a little bit to the right. If you don't agree, please change the nomination in discuss for more opinions. Btw, it is repairable --Michielverbeek 05:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Little tilt is no problem for me. --Augustgeyler (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a big deal for me either. It fits perfectly within the frame. --Vincent60030 10:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, I realize I have been too severe and have trusted too much to my first impression. --Michielverbeek 03:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -Michielverbeek 03:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Malga_alla_Colma_di_Toceno_-_Val_Vigezzo,_Toceno_VCO,_Piedmont,_Italy_2020-09-12.jpg[edit]

Malga alla Colma di Toceno - Val Vigezzo, Toceno VCO, Piedmont, Italy 2020-09-12.jpg

  • Nomination Alpine hut near Toceno, Vigezzo Valley in Italy. --Mænsard vokser 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness is missing --Augustgeyler 10:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough. --Palauenc05 16:58, 17 September 2020
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Palauenc05 --ReneeWrites 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Palauenc05. -- Ikan Kekek 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness, colors and composition are good. -- Spurzem 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed. Perspective. --Smial 09:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed - significant blue CA on tree top, left sloping roof edge, right bushes, gutter. --Tagooty 13:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Palauenc05. --Vincent60030 15:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Vincent60030 15:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Grillige_boomstronk._Locatie,_Stuttebosch_in_de_lendevallei._27-08-2020._(actm.)_01.jpg[edit]

Grillige boomstronk. Locatie, Stuttebosch in de lendevallei. 27-08-2020. (actm.) 01.jpg

  • Nomination Whimsical tree stump. Location, Stuttebosch in the lime valley. Friesland province.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 04:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is difficult to separate the stump in the image from the background. --Kirill Borisenko 01:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed the stump should be better separated from the background. Maybe it can still be done with image editing afterwards.-- Spurzem 06:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with Kirill. It's really hard to separate the main object from its background --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Fischer.H 17:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Tagooty 13:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Vincent60030 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2014_Powiat_wodzisławski,_Buków,_Kaplica_Matki_Boskiej_Różańcowej_01.jpg[edit]

2014 Powiat wodzisławski, Buków, Kaplica Matki Boskiej Różańcowej 01.jpg

  • Nomination Our Lady of the Sorrow chapel. Buków, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 09:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 12:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. There is a lack of sharpness. --Augustgeyler 10:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. For me the sharpness is sufficent for QI. --Armenak Margarian 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With a camera like that I may have to agree with Augustgeyler. --Vincent60030 10:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking sharpness, sky noisy. --Tagooty 13:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Vincent60030 10:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2014_Rybnik,_Zabytkowa_Kopalnia_Ignacy_07.jpg[edit]

2014 Rybnik, Zabytkowa Kopalnia Ignacy 07.jpg

  • Nomination The Kościuszko shaft hoisting tower. „Ignacy” Historic Mine. Rybnik, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 09:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 12:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree due to distortion and lack of sharpness --Augustgeyler 10:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. I see no disturbing distortion. -- Spurzem 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I checked it again, and I am sorry but there is a strong distortion. --Augustgeyler 10:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is sufficient for a QI considering its structure. --Vincent60030 10:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Vincent60030 10:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:AntoninoReyes.jpg[edit]

AntoninoReyes.jpg

  • Nomination Antonino Reyes, military of Argentina. --Ezarate 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the work of a Commoner --Poco a poco 20:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I did the scanning job --Ezarate 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it mean according to argentinian law that you do have the rights of the image? or don't you get those rights by scanning? sorry, I'm not an expert in that field and it isn't a QI to me as long as it can be proven that you do have the rights of the image after the scanning, only then it would be the work of a Commoner --Poco a poco 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Ch Decaux is the author, he died more than 70 years, so it is in PD Ezarate 20:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I looked up the guidelines for the creator, which states the following:
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).
The bolded part refers to (for instance) photographs of historical paintings; the photographer in that case owns the copyright to the picture even if they didn't make the painting. But I think an argument can be made that "photographical reproductions" include scanned pictures by Wikipedians as well (provided there's no further copyright conflict, which isnt the case with images in the public domain), because if the rule applied to photography exclusively it would've just said that. --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Mantra_-_De_mooiste_vlinders_van_de_stad.png[edit]

Mantra - De mooiste vlinders van de stad.png

  • Nomination Large mural by Mantra aka Youri Casell depicting three huge, hyperrealistic paintings of butterflies on the side of an apartment building --ReneeWrites 22:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking detail, sorry. Looks like a mobile phone shot. --Peulle 09:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Uploaded a new version, let's discuss if this one meets QI guidelines. --ReneeWrites 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me and interesting -- Spurzem 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Moroder 23:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Detail is missing due to hard compression. --Augustgeyler 10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what you mean? --ReneeWrites 11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Somewhere in processing jpeg the information was hardly compressed to reduce file size. Due to this many details on the architecture as well as in the greenery got lost.--Augustgeyler 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Augustgeyler: I changed the image based on your feedback, could you take another look at it? --ReneeWrites 22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Updated the image: added detail to the architecture, removed the greenery on the left that lacked detail. --ReneeWrites 20:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly compressed. --Vincent60030 10:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Vincent60030 10:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Bahnhof,_abgerissenes_Empfangsgebäude_--_2020_--_171401.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Bahnhof, abgerissenes Empfangsgebäude -- 2020 -- 171401.jpg

  • Nomination: Demolished reception building of the Dülmen train station, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Mostly unsharp and lack of details. Sorry. --Mosbatho 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jaritz --Moroder 23:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good composition but detail is missing--Augustgeyler 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp. --Vincent60030 10:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Vincent60030 10:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Cortile_interno_ingresso_trifora_Castello_di_Stenico.jpg[edit]

Cortile interno ingresso trifora Castello di Stenico.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance court with trifora of Stenico castle in Trentino. --Moroder 10:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some frames are blurry, not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 10:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    * Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good image for me and sharp enough. I can read "Bike parking" on the blue plate for example. Pease discuss. -- Spurzem 11:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    There are sharp areas, too, taking one of them as an example is not the point here. Poco a poco 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Kritzolina 07:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --ReneeWrites 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with Poco here. The blurred areas are there. They are not extremely blurred, but the transitions between blurred parts of the picture and sharp ones are very disturbing. I also think the picture is slightly overexposed. -- Smial 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much on the left side is blurred and the right is leaning out.--Peulle 06:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Peulle: Pardon me, where and what is leaning?--Moroder 22:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • See the building on the right side, how the wall appears to be tilted? That's what I mean. It is caused by perspective warp.--Peulle 06:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No! It's caused by 800 years of age --Moroder 08:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think so; the angles are the same on the wall in the background as well, and I can see the stretching in the image as you go upwards towards the corner.--Peulle 11:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I noticed disturbing distortions. --Vincent60030 11:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Vincent60030: Could you please put a note where the distortions are --Moroder 15:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Moroder: Done. Those are the distortions. --Vincent60030 16:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Vincent60030: What do you mean by distortion. Is it a lens failure? Could you please use a more technical expression? --Moroder 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Moroder: I am not that knowledgeable at technical terms but I can answer that the places I have put notes at are blur. I'll look up better terms. --Vincent60030 10:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I’m deeply bored--Moroder 13:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Vincent60030 08:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 13 Sep → Mon 21 Sep
Mon 14 Sep → Tue 22 Sep
Tue 15 Sep → Wed 23 Sep
Wed 16 Sep → Thu 24 Sep
Thu 17 Sep → Fri 25 Sep
Fri 18 Sep → Sat 26 Sep
Sat 19 Sep → Sun 27 Sep
Sun 20 Sep → Mon 28 Sep
Mon 21 Sep → Tue 29 Sep