Translate this page
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

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

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

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

Image page requirements
  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
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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


Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

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

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

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

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

How to nominate

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

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

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

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

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

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 June 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 June 16 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

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

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

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]] 10:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


June 16, 2024

June 15, 2024

June 14, 2024

June 13, 2024

June 12, 2024

June 11, 2024

June 10, 2024

June 9, 2024

June 8, 2024

June 7, 2024

June 6, 2024

June 5, 2024

June 4, 2024

June 3, 2024

June 1, 2024

May 31, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

Consensual review

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:Вид_с_перевала_Тахтакарача_на_Шахрисабз.jpg

  • Nomination Amankutan national park. Urgut District, Samarkand Region, Uzbekistan. By User:Уильям Дрейк --Красный 00:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --SHB2000 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, beautiful, but blurry and noisy --Plozessor 03:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Юлий_Цезарь2.jpg

  • Nomination Bust of Julius Caesar, Summer Garden, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bust is not actually yellow. Please discuss whether the photo is a QI despite the color cast. -- Spurzem 08:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made a conscious decision not to do color correction in this and some other pictures. There are dozens of photos where the sculptures of the Summer garden are shot as bright white, but I wanted to show them differently - to capture what they look like during the golden hour in cold October day of North-west Russia. It seems to me that there's some value in this, including educational one. -- Екатерина Борисова 06:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it how it is. Color seems natural for late afternoon in October. --Plozessor 08:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good explanation and I agree with the photographer's reasoning to keep the colors as they are. A white marble bust in sunset lighting is going to look like this. ReneeWrites 20:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per nominator. But the special lighting situation should be mentioned in the image description to avoid confusion. --Smial 10:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Connel_Bridge_seen_from_the_water.jpg

  • Nomination Connel Bridge in Connel, Scotland, as seen from a boat to the west of the bridge. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too dark and perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, otherwise overprocessed smartphone picture. Would be borderline even with correct exposure. --Plozessor 08:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Rotated slightly and increased the gamma to brighten. Please take another look. Grendelkhan 18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Passenger_Experience_Week_2024,_Hamburg_(P1180606).jpg

  • Nomination Radome on display at the World Travel Catering & Onboard Services Expo 2024 in Hamburg --Celestinesucess 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 19:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop of left lower part of the pedestal isn't optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. The resolution indicates that this is a cropped version, maybe the author can fix the crop. --Plozessor 09:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Lindsjøen_2023_(5).jpg

  • Nomination Lindsjøen in Norway.--Peulle 08:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --SHB2000 10:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, otherwise ok. --Plozessor 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted a lot. --Sebring12Hrs 19:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed with the others, the tilt should be corrected. ReneeWrites 22:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I don't think the photo is actually rotated very much, if it is, then only minimally. Most of the trees in the background are fairly vertical. If I rotate the image just 1° clockwise, most of the trees seem to fall over to the right. In the small preview it actually looks quite slanted, but this is probably an optical effect resulting from the lighting and the course of the opposite bank. --Smial 23:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Apart from the trees which are definitely leaning to the left, the lake's surface is clearly not horizontal. --Plozessor 04:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. My impression is that the lake is hanging crooked and is in danger of overflowing. -- Spurzem 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Church_in_Csavoly_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Church in Csávoly, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was the photo taken just before a heavy thunderstorm or is it simply underexposed? In addition, the perspective correction does not seem to have been done optimally. Please discuss whether the photo is a QI or still needs to be improved. -- Spurzem 07:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems leaning out but actually the perspective is correct. Still the picture is severely underexposed. --Plozessor 08:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it was before the storm, and it was a very rainy day. Until midday it was still tolerable (in spite of a little rain) and it was still possible to take pictures, but after midday it started raining so hard that I didn't take any more pictures that day. Spurzem, Plozessor; I have lightened the picture a bit, is it better? --Tournasol7 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective is not ok, the perspecrive is too much corrected, come on... In addition, not so dark for a bad weather. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Spurzem. --GRDN711 18:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GoldenArtists 20:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(3).jpg

  • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 04:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems to be underexposed. Perhaps it can be brightened. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not so dark for a bad weather. --Sebring12Hrs 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --GRDN711 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GoldenArtists 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Неоконченное_здание,_ЖК_Эко_Бунино.jpg

  • Nomination Unfinished building, Eco Bunino residential complex, Moscow --Юрий Д.К. 22:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please geolocate. --Grendelkhan 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Grendelkhan: Hi, coords has beed added Юрий Д.К. 20:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you; good quality. Grendelkhan 18:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not mandatory to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is ok. IMO description should show where the picture was taken (not just "building in Moscow"), but whether it is coordinates or an address or a well-known name does not matter. --Plozessor 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_Vision_EQXX,_IAA_Open_Space_2023,_Munich_(P1120195).jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX at IAA Open Space 2023, Munich --MB-one 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 11:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is this photo with the shadows and reflections, the low contrast between the roof of the vehicle and the wall, and the photographer's shadow a quality image? The bicycle on the left also disrupts the composition of the image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, disturbing background, photographer's (?) shadow. --Plozessor 06:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the two previous posts. Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Parque_Alberto_Manuel_Brenes.jpg

  • Nomination Alberto Manuel Brenes Park, San Ramón, Costa Rica --Bgag 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There's purple fringing and also wires across the photo are very disturbing --Екатерина Борисова 02:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also wonder whether this image has any particular subject, as opposed to various objects almost randomly scattered around it. --Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:OSV_Adriatic.jpg

  • Nomination OSV Adriatic --GuavaTrain 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Красный 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. But the image is over-processed and  Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Brighten it up a bit and increase the contrast a little and the picture is good. I can't understand the blanket criticism of "not enough detail" or "zu geringe Detailzeichnung“. -- Spurzem 12:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but borderline. --Plozessor 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It seems to be sharp enough and have enough detail for me. But there's something about the composition and low level of brightness that makes it a bit too bland to be a quality image. Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner_2.jpg

  • Nomination a bee foraging 2I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one's more tricky, as not the entire body of the bee is in focus, but the parts that are are amazingly detailed. I also adore the pose. I doubt it'll pass review but it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Supporting this. --Plozessor 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Me too. The subject is the bee, and its head is in sharp focus. Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not impressed. The bee is only very slightly sharp and the flower is too bright. -- Spurzem 11:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_London_2024_109.jpg

  • Nomination Roadworks on Baker Street, London, revealing underground piping. --Mike Peel 07:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quality good but slightly leaning out on both sides! --Scotch Mist 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective redone, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left ok now but right still slightly leaning out! --Scotch Mist 06:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, I used the lamppost on the right, but guess it's not straight. Perspective redone using part of a building, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky and some details next to it are burned out. --Augustgeyler 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. In addition, the file name is too broad. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nicely composed, sharp, image of an interesting subject. File name complies with the uploader's usual form of file names. Is the sky (which is in the distant background) really burned out, or is it just a typical overcast London sky? Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mallaig_coastal_view.jpg

  • Nomination The coastline at Mallaig, Scotland, as seen from a little ways up a hill. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here due to intense camera processing. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the level of detail is too low, but I'd prefer the land portion of the image to be a little brighter, even though that might not quite be an accurate depiction of northern Scotland. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightened it a bit; thanks. Grendelkhan 17:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, level of detail is enough. ReneeWrites 20:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The brightening is a big improvement. Bahnfrend 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with the too strong distortion, but this should be fixable by skewing it (making the right side lower/smaller). --Plozessor 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Also, the base of the image has been a little over cropped for me. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --PaestumPaestum 16:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A830_in_Mallaig_city_center.jpg

  • Nomination The A830 road as it passes through the city center of Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, I think it's fine. Let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow, please explain. It's in focus and well exposed at around 12 MP; what kind of detail do you mean? --Grendelkhan 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail seems fine for me. --MB-one 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. Just so much mobile phone processing made any texture disappear. --Augustgeyler 08:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are at least fifty other QI taken with this phone model; I don't think that the processing is generally held to be a problem. See https://w.wiki/AK7R. Grendelkhan 11:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The quality in this images sometimes show way less detail than a 12 years old DSLR would provide. In some scenarios with bright light nad good contrast the results might be OK. But in some other situations, like here, the over processing really makes the result too poor to become QI. --Augustgeyler 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, overprocessed. That there are QIs taken with a Pixel XL doesn't make all Pixel XL pictures QIs. --Plozessor 03:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is a bit too dark for me, but perhaps that's just because I'm not very familiar with Scotland. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightened a bit. Please have another look. Grendelkhan 20:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

  • Nomination The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed the perspective. Grendelkhan 05:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Better, there is a slight cw tilt and a bit of noise but overall I move to  Neutral now Poco a poco 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, lack of detail, halos around the object. Not bad for a night shot with a smartphone, but IMO not good enough for a QI. --Plozessor 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nice, sharp, sufficiently detailed, blue hour image. I can't see any halos. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose have to agree with Plozessor here. The sky is very nice though. --MB-one 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne_Kaun_at_Republica_2024_04.jpg

  • Nomination Anne Kaun at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I think the woman is not sharp enough and ther is some lack of detail. No QI for me. --Alexander-93 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I take into account that this is not a studio shot, but was photographed in available light and that the image is significantly larger than six mpixels, then the quality is quite acceptable. --Smial 13:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Spurzem 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not even sharp when downscaled to 3 MP. --Plozessor 03:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry.--Ermell 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good image. But like the other statet, it just not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree - not sharp enough. --Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appropriate credit should be given to the SVG elements you used. E.g. the fish are from File:Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin.svg but those are not listed anywhere in the description. I also wonder why you chose a depiction of the griffins with short tails when they have long, lion-like tails in all the source images or why both wings are pointed up when in all the source images they have one wing pointed up and one down. ReneeWrites 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The source thing is done, by the way, sa I told to the other, there is free stylistic form for the blazon (please read in the file desc {coa blazon}) --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Where exactly can I find the blazoning text? --Smial 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
        • If you mean the template {coa blazon}, below the author of the file, near the section "other versions". --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment still not one third party source to verify the coat of arms is the same as the actual coat of arms, just links to other images on commons Gnangarra 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I writed the historical source of the Coat of Arms, from the tables of the Armorial of the families of the Habsburg Empire. --ZuppaDiCarlo 22:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial --PaestumPaestum 16:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Sat 08 Jun → Sun 16 Jun
  • Sun 09 Jun → Mon 17 Jun
  • Mon 10 Jun → Tue 18 Jun
  • Tue 11 Jun → Wed 19 Jun
  • Wed 12 Jun → Thu 20 Jun
  • Thu 13 Jun → Fri 21 Jun
  • Fri 14 Jun → Sat 22 Jun
  • Sat 15 Jun → Sun 23 Jun
  • Sun 16 Jun → Mon 24 Jun