Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
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.

Contents

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 in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 also nominate 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 April 19 2018 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 can not 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 are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

April 19, 2018[edit]

April 18, 2018[edit]

April 17, 2018[edit]

April 16, 2018[edit]

April 15, 2018[edit]

April 14, 2018[edit]

April 13, 2018[edit]

April 12, 2018[edit]

April 11, 2018[edit]

April 10, 2018[edit]

April 9, 2018[edit]

April 7, 2018[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:Zebu_near_Gondar.jpg[edit]

Zebu near Gondar.jpg

  • Nomination A zebu on the road between Gondar and Debarq, Ethiopia --Bgag 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose not for me. Charlesjsharp 07:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Interesting motif, sharp enough. --Palauenc05 16:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality IMO. --PJDespa 06:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Palauenc05. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Palauenc05. -- DerFussi 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2016_Rangun,_Oddział-3_Banku_Ekonomicznego_Mjanmy_(01).jpg[edit]

2016 Rangun, Oddział-3 Banku Ekonomicznego Mjanmy (01).jpg

  • Nomination Myanma Economic Bank Branch-3. Yangon, Myanmar. --Halavar 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice angle, but too unsharpSymbol support vote.svg  Support Better --Daniel Case 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  Done New, fixed version uploaded right now with improved sharpness level. --Halavar 19:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough. Hint: You shouldn't set the polarizer always to maximum effect. Intense colours and deep blue sky are nice, but sometimes look somewhat unnatural, esp. in wide angle shots. --Smial 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Powiat_cieszyński,_Marklowice_Górne,_Tablica_wjazdu_do_miasta_Jastrzębie-Zdrój.jpg[edit]

2012 Powiat cieszyński, Marklowice Górne, Tablica wjazdu do miasta Jastrzębie-Zdrój.jpg

  • Nomination Entry sign to the Jastrzębie-Zdrój city. Marklowice Górne, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sky is oversaturated OK Symbol support vote.svg  weak support ; it still looks awfully blue but not unnnaturally so. --Daniel Case 19:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  Done New better version uploaded right now. Please take a look again. --Halavar 08:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vitoria - Salburua - Largartija 01.jpg[edit]

Vitoria - Salburua - Largartija 01.jpg

  • Nomination Wall lizard (Podarcis) in the Salburua wetlands. According to www.biodiversidadvirtual.org there are two especies (Podarcis muralis and Podarcis hispanica) in the wetlands. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 09:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment There is a problem of DoF with this one, the 02 is better. Unfortunately, I gueess this problem is not fixable, isn't it ? --PJDespa 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    @PJDespa: Correct, the DoF is a bit shallow, however the eyes are sharp and I think it's still within the limits (might be weak, though). Would you reject it? Maybe I'd like to hear other opinions, then. --Basotxerri 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Ok, I agree with you. Good quality IMO. --PJDespa 06:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the nose is unsharp. I could support this if the whole head was sharp, or at least from the nose to the eyes, but it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Ikan. --Smial 13:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg  I withdraw my nomination OK, thank you all, I'm convinced now. --Basotxerri 15:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Jastrzębie-Zdrój,_Kaplica_na_ulicy_Szybowej_(01).jpg[edit]

2012 Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Kaplica na ulicy Szybowej (01).jpg

  • Nomination Chapel on Szybowa Street. Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --GT1976 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment This is not a good picture. See sky and leaves. I do not even understand that it is proposed, but I will not decline, on the same day, three photos of the same author--Lmbuga 21:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Sky and leaves are not important. --Halavar 22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You're right: Not important for an image other than QI IMO, I'm sorry Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Lmbuga 00:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Lmbuga. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others.--Ermell 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Lmbuga. Also distracting fill-in flash with reflections. --Smial 13:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Jastrzębie-Zdrój,_Miejsce_pamięci_żołnierzy_Armii_Czerwonej_i_Czechosłowackiej_poległych_w_1945_roku_(02).jpg[edit]

2012 Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Miejsce pamięci żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej i Czechosłowackiej poległych w 1945 roku (02).jpg

  • Nomination Memorial of Red Army and Czechoslovakia soldiers who died in 1945. Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --GT1976 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry, see notes. I think the image is not easily improved. Strong chromatic aberrations (head). Pour detail (head). In my opinion, too tight at top--Lmbuga 21:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done New fixed version uploaded now. Please take a look again. --Halavar 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Deleted notes about CAs. Much better, but the detail (head) is not good IMO to be QI, sorry. And too tight at top (composition) --Lmbuga 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good and detailed enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 17:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough -- DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Canon_PowerShot_S45_-_main_board-4833.jpg[edit]

Canon PowerShot S45 - main board-4833.jpg

  • Nomination Canon PowerShot S45 - main board. By User:Raymond --Achim Raschka 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK --Verum 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Dust spots (see notes). Perhaps overexposed or poor detail IMO--Lmbuga 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Looks good to me. The dust spots I'm seeing would seem to actually be in the picture, not the lens, and they're tiny. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your review. I have cleaned up the dust spots. Raymond 06:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good sharpness and very informative. Although I'd suggest somewhat less contrast, and somewhat reduced exposure, to reduce the burnt spots at the solder points. I know, this is not a simple task ;-) --Smial 10:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Verum 12:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.27.jpg[edit]

BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.27.jpg

  • Nomination Wide, finely decorated bracelet --Ercé 08:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The work on the borders between the background and the objects has not been successful. --Peulle 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks OK to me. Charlesjsharp 13:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Peulle. --Basotxerri 17:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Peule. PS CS6 that you have used should have the "refine edges" feature, maybe you can give it another try? -- DerFussi 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I added some notes in case people can't see what I mean. I'm all for creating a unicoloured background in images such as these, but it has to be done right.--Peulle 10:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Building_in_Avenida_Paulista,_Brazil_2.jpg[edit]

Building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil 2.jpg

  • Nomination Paulista 867, Comendador Yerchanik Kissajikian, Banco Mercantil and São Miguel Buildings, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo --The Photographer 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Please check the verticals.--Ermell 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  Done Ermell Thanks. --The Photographer 17:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I am not really convinced. Hard to tell which one of the buildings is vertical and which not. There are also many disturbing artefacts. --Ermell 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Comendador Yerchanik Kissajikian buildings in the Paulista Avenue are not architectonically verticals, the front face was designed to look like it was falling forward. --The Photographer 23:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol support vote.svg  Support per photographer's explanation. Might be a bit sharper, but IMO a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough. --Smial 10:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg  Support -- DerFussi 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Black_heron_(Egretta_ardesiaca).jpg[edit]

Black heron (Egretta ardesiaca).jpg

  • Nomination Black heron (Egretta ardesiaca), Botswana --Charlesjsharp 14:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support Could have been sharper.--Famberhorst 15:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Blurry, sorry (see head). QI is much more IMO. Foreground is disturbing (see note)--Lmbuga 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per User:Lmbuga. Sorry, but I must agree. Not a QI --Halavar 10:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Inge Keller - Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof - Mutter Erde fec.JPG[edit]

Inge Keller - Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof - Mutter Erde fec.JPG

  • Nomination Grave of German actress Inge Keller in Dorotheenstadt cemetery --Mutter Erde 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Small photo, but not too small. Stronger colours would have ben an improvement. Qualuity high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor proposal when taking the image. It's distorted (It needs perspective correction). Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 23:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Seems good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Basotxerri 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I disagree, a perspective correction of the base would distort the sculpture excessive and look strange. Its ok as it is. -- DerFussi 17:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Teatro_Don_Pedro_V,_Macao,_2013-08-08,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

Teatro Don Pedro V, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 01.jpg

  • Nomination Dom Pedro V Theater, Macau --Poco a poco 07:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Strong purple fringes and I don't like the way perspctive distortion is handled and the blurring that comes with it.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Strong perspective correction. Excessive perspective correction. Unnatural image--Lmbuga 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good enough quality, perspective OK to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Took me long time to decide.... but at the end per Lmbuga. It looks too unnatural due to the excessive perspective correction. -- DerFussi 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Girl_in_Mara_village,_Morena_district.jpg[edit]

Girl in Mara village, Morena district.jpg

  • Nomination Girls in Mara village, Morena district, M.P., India. --Yann 12:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 18:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Could I have a second opinion please? --Yann 19:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I've to agree with Christian, it isn't really sharp Poco a poco 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I agree. What happened with these? Shutter speed 160 is usually enough for me, so why didn't it work here? Was the lighting perhaps such that the ISO should have been higher and the shutter speed even higher? Or is it the f-stop? --Peulle 08:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry, but I must agree. Very nice picture but it's blurred and not sharp enough. Clearly not a QI. --Halavar 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:IDF-M270-MLRS--ZE-white.jpg[edit]

IDF-M270-MLRS--ZE-white.jpg

  • Nomination IDF M270 MLRS "Menatetz". --MathKnight 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Derivative work of the image on the right, and therefore not an original QI --Poco a poco 18:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment If the source is QI, this one could be as well. --Yann 12:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yann: are you suggesting that out of an image I could generate an unlimited amount of QIs for each derivative work?, sorry, I strongly disagree. Poco a poco 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I believe the point is moot; this is a Flickr image and as such it is not eligible for QI, isn't that right?--Peulle 08:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Per se ineligible per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - per others -- DerFussi 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Darshan_Singh_from_village_Akbarpur_Afghana.jpg[edit]

Darshan Singh from village Akbarpur Afghana.jpg

  • Nomination Darshan Singh from village Akbarpur Afghana --Satdeep Gill 16:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry, but I strongly disagree: face is absolutely out of focus. --Basotxerri 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Certainly good enough for QI. You can't barely see the difference of focus, even at 6 Mpx. Yann 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Slight back focus, so in full resolution the image is not perfect. But per Yann: Up to 6 Mpx and more sharp enough. Very nice lighting and composition, so weak Symbol support vote.svg  Support . --Smial 09:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC) If the uploader had resized the image to about 6 MPixels, nobody would have noticed the problem - and 6 Mpixels are always good enough for QI. Resizing images taken under difficult circumstances is imo allowed.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Regardless of size, this image is out of focus. Not just unsharp as a result of some technical issues, but our of focus.--Peulle 09:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Peulle: This is a nonsense review, and it incites people to downsize the pictures. :( Yann 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment You're wrong. On both counts.--Peulle 23:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 20:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment The face is out of focus as the focus is on the neck, but we don't have any objective standard on what represents QI. As a photo, this is so much better than many images promoted here and the lack of downsizing is a plus. Charles (talk)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vila_no_Parque_Biribiri.jpg[edit]

Vila no Parque Biribiri.jpg

  • Nomination Vila no Parque Biribiri --Rodrigo.Argenton 00:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose IMO not good enough for a QI. Fixable errors: slight perspective issue, CAs. IMO unfixable: lack of sharpness, highlights blown in the sky. --Basotxerri 08:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Basotxerri there is a lack of depth of field, not in sharpness, the main subject is in focus, and highlights blow out of the main subject not important at all... and it's "fixable", was a choice. --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Basotxerri. --Smial 09:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose perspective issues.--Peulle 09:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose perspective should be fixed in this case, although we obviously look upwards and would expect a perspective distortion, but its still a slight one. And I agree, blown highlights and a lack of sharpness. This sensor could provide a sharper image, i think. -- DerFussi 12:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 08:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Jacana spinosa MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.2.22.jpg[edit]

Jacana spinosa MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.2.22.jpg

  • Nomination egg of northern jacana - Œuf de Jacana du Mexique --Ercé 16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry, but these flash reflections are really distracting. --Code 05:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Nice, but sorry, I agree my previous speaker here -- DerFussi 12:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - I agree too. Too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 10:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Petřvald_kostel_sv._Jindřicha.jpg[edit]

Petřvald kostel sv. Jindřicha.jpg

  • Nomination Church of Saint Henry in Peřvald, Czech Republic --T.Bednarz 12:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • A weak Symbol support vote.svg  Support , because it might have been sharper and warmer (white balance more yellow). --Michielverbeek 13:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I do not agree, because image has several problems. Chromatic aberration, perspective distortion and image is not sharp enough. --Halavar 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Halavar. IMO the lack of sharpness isn't fixable. --Basotxerri 06:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per my two previous speakers. -- DerFussi 07:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 10:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Wed 11 Apr → Thu 19 Apr
Thu 12 Apr → Fri 20 Apr
Fri 13 Apr → Sat 21 Apr
Sat 14 Apr → Sun 22 Apr
Sun 15 Apr → Mon 23 Apr
Mon 16 Apr → Tue 24 Apr
Tue 17 Apr → Wed 25 Apr
Wed 18 Apr → Thu 26 Apr
Thu 19 Apr → Fri 27 Apr