Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2023.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2023.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 18 2023 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 09:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms


July 18, 2023[edit]

July 17, 2023[edit]

July 16, 2023[edit]

July 15, 2023[edit]

July 14, 2023[edit]

July 13, 2023[edit]

July 12, 2023[edit]

July 11, 2023[edit]

July 10, 2023[edit]

July 9, 2023[edit]

July 8, 2023[edit]

July 7, 2023[edit]

July 5, 2023[edit]

July 3, 2023[edit]

July 2, 2023[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Emerald_Tree_Boa,_Toronto_Zoo_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Emerald Tree Boa at Toronto Zoo. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Relativity 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Too dark IMO. Sorry. --Ermell 13:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Arboreal_Ratsnake_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arboreal Ratsnake at Toronto zoo --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Relativity 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far too dark and very blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 13:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell --Jakubhal 07:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost like the picture of a black cat in the dark basement with no light. -- Spurzem 07:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:05_2023_Views_from_London_Millennium_Bridge_IMG_7474.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from London Millennium Bridge.--Alexander-93 08:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Mostly good, but soft - can you sharpen it? --Mike Peel 11:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 17:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    It's now oversharpened. Is there a middle ground? Your car photos have been so sharp, it's puzzling why these wider photos are less sharp. --Mike Peel 22:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
    other camera use - the car photos where made with professional equipment, while the traveling photos have been shot with a canon 2000 --Grunpfnul 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Fair enough, converted to support as it's good enough. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree: Oversharpened, unsharp. --Kallerna 06:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 06:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:P1320213_Paris_IV_rue_St-Louis-en-ile_boutique_rwk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paris 4 rue St-Louis-en-ile, boutique (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but IMO too small for such an easy shot. Also I don't like intentionally blurred people --Jakubhal 13:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a 2015 photo taken with a w:Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 that had a maximum resolution of only 3648 × 2736 (10.1 megapixels), it's a good photo, and the blurring on the people is probably useless, because I think they'd be clearly identifiable to someone who knew them, anyway, but I don't consider that a reason to decline. -- Ikan Kekek 20:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This picture is not 10.1 megapixels, but slightly less than 3, for the still subject. --Jakubhal 04:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It was probably cropped from a larger photo of facades on that street to make it a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Kodak_Brownie_127.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Speedcube_GAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stickerless GAN 356 RS 3x3 speedcube, view from blue-orange side. --多多123 18:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, noisy and some CAs --Mike Peel 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I will try to fix the issues. --多多123 20:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it's noisy? The CA is just on the left side of the blue, the rest is the color of the other side blending in. --多多123 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • There's no noise IMO, the texture is like that on the cube and the table is also very "noisy" as well as the wall behind, but you can add annotations on the image if you can see any noise. --多多123 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 09:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:At_New_York_City_2023_072.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination World Yachts Princess and Duchess at Manhattan --Mike Peel 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry - too dark, particularly in the mid-tones. Also, very cluttered with the pylon in front and the dock in the back. Need to focus and isolate for a better view of the ship(s). A day with better weather would also be helpful. --GRDN711 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dull light, bad crop. --Kallerna 06:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me, and the crop is OK. Some days are like that, and while the photo is not pixel sharp or anything like that, I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:SGH-L760.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Samsung Ted Baker SGH-L760 in coral pink. --多多123 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the picture would be more useful if it was turned to the right so that the phone was facing the right way. If necessary, perspective or exposure would have to be corrected. But as it is, not much can be done with it. --Аныл Озташ 22:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Turning it to the right is irrational as the shot is this way, I would have to remove the shadow or it would look out of place. --多多123 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is extremely rare for me to reject QIC because of an odd composition, but combined with the unconvincing lighting with harsh, multiple shadows, I do not consider this photo to be a well executed subject shot under studio conditions. --Smial 00:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
     Info
    "Studio" conditions is a bit too much, the only thing I did for this image was put it on a table next to a wall and take the photo. --多多123 10:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Studio conditions does not mean that someone buys or rents a many $$$ expensive professional studio, but that one can use the possibility to control the light, the background and the arrangement of the objects to be photographed at will. Unlike outdoor or action or available light or street photography. Many of my "studio photos" were taken simply with a piece of photo cardboard as a background, a white sheet of paper as a brightener and a halogen construction spotlight or a window (without direct sunlight) as a light source. --Smial 11:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 Comment Oh, okay. --多多123 11:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Чепура_велика_на_ставі.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Protected area in Ukraine By User:Byrdyak --Luda.slominska 09:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is not in focus. --多多123 19:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
     Support The head seems to be in focus for me, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. Other than that it's good quality, so promote. Relativity 05:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • weak  Support User 多多123's objection is correct, but I think the image sharpness is still sufficient for a usable A4-size printout. Nice colours, lighting, and composition. --Smial 16:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support agree with others. --GRDN711 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality for a bird captured in flight. -- Ikan Kekek 20:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:BMW_M4_CSL_IMG_7638.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BMW M4 CSL in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very unfavorable lighting, making it almost impossible to see the wheels, unnecessarily narrowly cut; I don't think it's a quality picture. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, wheels are obviously visible, even with a white overlay, lighting does not affect the composition too much, crop isn't as narrow as other images. --多多123 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Mike Peel 19:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_moisture_sucking_of_Graphium_nomius_(Esper,_1799)_-_Spot_Swordtail_WLB.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing moisture sucking of Graphium nomius (Esper, 1799) - Spot Swordtail WLB --Anitava Roy 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --多多123 15:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose too soft for me --Charlesjsharp 21:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality.--Luda.slominska 14:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Mike Peel 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:রয়াল_এনফিল্ড_মিটিওর_৩৫০_স্টিলার_রেড.jpg[edit]

  • Lighting doesn't seem to be a problem IMO, the crop is fine for me and the background would be the only problem actually, all IMO. --多多123 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight bottom crop and disturbing background -- Jakubhal 05:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, especially due to the overlapping images from the background. -- Ikan Kekek 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Recknitz_Valley,_Ahrenshagen-Daskow_(LRM_20200607_171900-hdr-Pano).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the Recknitz Valley in Ahrenshagen-Daskow --MB-one 07:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching errors on the outher sides --Grunpfnul 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've added notes in the two places concerned. --Аныл Озташ 09:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's right, I didn't see the issue, removed my support vote. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Wolford_Cotton_Velvet_Rib_bodysuit_and_tights_-_black_and_white_version.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wolford Cotton Velvet Rib bodysuit and tights - black and white version --Tobias ToMar Maier 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Derivative work of the image on the left that I just tagged as QI --Poco a poco 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is made from the same RAW file, that is true. I assumed it would not matter. And I don't think an 8-Bit jpeg would yield the same result. But you could try to make one for comparison.--Tobias ToMar Maier 22:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • If you believe that rather this version is the better one, I can support here and would oppose the other one. No problem with that. Poco a poco 18:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment What a clumsy pose! --Palauenc05 10:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6344_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Women's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Melanie Leupolz. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • You are not going to damage the image removing that CA. Is this anyhow a good portrait where the subject is closing her eyes? I  Oppose because of that. Poco a poco 18:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Poco a poco and User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6335_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Women's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Klara Bühl. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment Lack of chromatic aberrations is part of the image guidelines. It's quite an easy fix, and I believe it will not "distort the image" if you do that skilfully --Jakubhal 06:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6316_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination FWomen's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Chantal Hagel. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment If it's just a green CA, it's easily fixable if you make the green saturation 0. As there is no other green object in the picture, it wouldn't affect anything else.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Nötsch_Sankt_Georgen_2_Pfarramt_04072023_4103.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rectory in Sankt Georgen im Gailtal #2, Nötsch, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 03:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Verticals a bit off --CherryX 08:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @CherryX: Thanks. Verticals have been corrected. —- Johann Jaritz 04:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Mike Peel 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Matka_Canyon_Skopje_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Matka Canyon, Skopje. --Kallerna 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlucky crop (few space at the top and the bottom) --CherryX 18:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Gorgeous photo, but I have to agree with CherryX that the crop at the bottom is too tight, I'm sorry. ReneeWrites 08:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support A bit more space at the top and the bottom would be nice, but I think it's ok for a QI. --Sandro Halank 17:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Sandro --Michielverbeek 05:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is OK to me, but is the white balance too blue? -- Ikan Kekek 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good to me.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC))

File:06_2023_Castello_di_Miramare_(Trieste)_IMG_7559.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mediterranean Sea at Trieste.--Alexander-93 06:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Question Too many blown-out areas. Fixable? --LexKurochkin 09:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 12:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 09:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
     Half done  Weak oppose Sorry, but let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Nice image, sharp enough, good lighting, good colors. What should it be more for QI? I see no lack. -- Spurzem 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but too low detail level. --Tournasol7 15:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7 --Sandro Halank 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a decent A4 size print. I don't see what the photographer would have done wrong. Even though the lens used may not give as much detail as one that cost many thousands of $, at least the photo is cleanly finished, CA or distortions are not visible. At most, you could ask for a little less noise reduction. --Smial 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline image for me, but tend to support --PantheraLeo1359531 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - please eliminate the dust spots in the upper center (unless they're really clouds) and smooth out the somewhat blotchy sky. -- Ikan Kekek 13:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I eliminated the spots in a new version of the image.--Alexander-93 16:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support acceptable --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 10 Jul → Tue 18 Jul
  • Tue 11 Jul → Wed 19 Jul
  • Wed 12 Jul → Thu 20 Jul
  • Thu 13 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
  • Fri 14 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
  • Sat 15 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
  • Sun 16 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
  • Mon 17 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
  • Tue 18 Jul → Wed 26 Jul