Translate this page
Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

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

Purpose

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

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

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 October 2021.
  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 October 2021.
  • 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 October 06 2021 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]] 22:20, 6 October 2021 (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


October 6, 2021

October 5, 2021

October 4, 2021

October 3, 2021

October 2, 2021

October 1, 2021

September 30, 2021

September 29, 2021

September 28, 2021

September 27, 2021

September 26, 2021

September 25, 2021

September 24, 2021

September 23, 2021

September 19, 2021

September 13, 2021

September 12, 2021

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 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

File:Gigaliner_P1300006.jpg

Gigaliner P1300006.jpg

  • Nomination Gigaliner auf dem Tank-und Rasthof in Schwegenheim, B 9, Rheinland-Pfalz, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Commonists 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - it's a nice view, but the truck is rather unsharp and many parts are too noisy.--Alexander-93 19:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfectly serviceable for QI. --King of Hearts 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Acceptable lighting, exposure, sharpness etc., but way too noisy. --Smial 10:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy, even the sky at screen size. --Trougnouf 18:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 18:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Close_wing_nectaring_position_of_Eurema_hecabe_–_Common_Grass_Yellow.jpg

Close wing nectaring position of Eurema hecabe – Common Grass Yellow.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing nectaring position of Eurema hecabe – Common Grass Yellow. (by Sarpitabose) --Atudu 07:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me. Not enough sharp, head not in focus. Alexander Novikov 14:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alexander. --Smial 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alexander. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:001_2021_03_05_Lichtzeltfotografie.jpg

001 2021 03 05 Lichtzeltfotografie.jpg

  • Nomination Photo of a knitted doll in a self-made lightbox
    --F. Riedelio 09:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I bilieve you could improve the categorization:it's the photo of photographing a doll  ;-) --Moroder 20:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    []
  • ✓ New category Thanks for the hint. --F. Riedelio 06:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    []
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - partially under- and partially overexposed. Noisy and rather unsharp. Too busy background. --Kallerna 05:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna. Also lots of artifacts by sharpening and denoising. --Smial 11:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
✓ New version Thanks for the review.
I have tried to improve the picture as far as it is possible with a photo from a middle class mobile phone --F. Riedelio 15:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good to me. The doll is clear and the composition is nice and unusual. -- Ikan Kekek 20:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Erm.... especially the doll shows strong smeared denoising artifacts. Partly you can see a knitting pattern, partly there are simply blurred spots. --Smial 10:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks solid to me at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is really complicated but I think Ikan is right.--Commonists 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Archeopark_Pavlov_in_Summer.jpg

Archeopark Pavlov in Summer.jpg

  • Nomination Architectural elements of Archeopark Pavlov museum. Photographed in hot summer light --Miha Peče 05:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
    Looking at a similar picture I guess that the image is tilted in cw direction, the left window should be, I believe, straight --Poco a poco 08:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    []
  • Check this one. It's similar but it'S ccw - look lake on right. --Miha Peče 08:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I made tilt correction, small cw rotation. After studying similar perspectives from other, specially photo above. --Miha Peče 07:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 10:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Rigi_Kulm_cross_20210905.jpg

Rigi Kulm cross 20210905.jpg

  • Nomination Wooden cross on Rigi Kulm --Domob 16:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support *Good quality. --Halavar 17:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    []
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Too bluish in the distance --Milseburg 10:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm working out the right WB on another nomination at the moment, and will update this one accordingly once we agree what it should be. --Domob 08:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
✓ Done I've adjusted the colours now. A bit warmer WB and also reduced blue a bit more. --Domob 10:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wasn't there, but the white balance seems reasonable enough for me to support now. -- Ikan Kekek 22:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me now. --Milseburg 09:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 09:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Zugersee_from_Rigi_panorama_20210905.jpg

Zugersee from Rigi panorama 20210905.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Zugersee from Rigi Kulm --Domob 16:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Halavar 17:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    []
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Too bluish in the distance. --Milseburg 10:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm working out the right WB on another nomination at the moment, and will update this one accordingly once we agree what it should be. --Domob 08:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
✓ Done I've adjusted the WB now and made it in particular less blue. --Domob 13:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Even still, is the lake that aquamarine? -- Ikan Kekek 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't guarantee that this colour is 100% what it looked like on the spot, but it doesn't seem very off to me from what I remember. I'm happy to make further adjustments to the WB if you have concrete suggestions, though. --Domob 05:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not as convinced as on the other one, but good enough to give up oposing. --Milseburg 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Champakulam_St._Mary's_Basilica1.jpg

Champakulam St. Mary's Basilica1.jpg

  • Nomination Champakulam Kallorkadu St. Marys's Basilica. By User:T M Cyriac --Bodhisattwa 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. IMO the depth of field is too small: the front and back of the church are out of focus. --Carsten Steger 06:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Quality image --Gnoeee 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the size of the church, the quality is good enough. --Tagooty 09:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot to remove. --Steindy 20:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, too tight crop. -- Alvesgaspar 23:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Cn_Überseering_33a_2020_03.jpg

Cn Überseering 33a 2020 03.jpg

  • Nomination Hamburg, commercial area City Nord, office building Überseering 33a --Dirtsc 17:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
    Please add more sharpness. --Halavar 18:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried a new version. Please take a look. Greetings --Dirtsc 20:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I do not see a big difference. The building is sharp, but problem is with other parts. Especially right side of the picture is not sharp enough. --Halavar 21:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, I focused on the building, but I understand your point. The unsharpness at the right side (and at the left side) is due to the perpespective correction. With the trees and their branches you can see this very clearly. I don't think I can get rid of this unsharpness without changing the perspective correction. Feel free to decline the image, maybe I'll send it to CR to have more opinions on this problem. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I think others should decide. --Halavar 09:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Halavar did the review and was unsatisfied by the sharpness especially of the trees on the right. I'd like to see your opinions on this topic. As I said above, the perspective correction of the main motiv causes a decreasing sharpness towards the right and left borders of the image. This can imho only be solved if I apply a lesser perspective correction or if I crop the image at the borders. But maybe the image meets the QI criteria. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. --Hillopo2018 08:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe that the lens used may be decentered. This does not seem to be uncommon with this zoom, as I have seen this and similar imperfections on several images taken with it. I find some remnants of CA on the right edge of the image, but not on the left edge. On the other hand, sharpness is better on the right than on the far left edge. Perhaps the lens is simply not very well suited for architectural shots - in landscapes, close-ups, etc. such a thing is usually less disturbing. You might be able to improve the result by stopping down to f/11 when shooting, but that's a bit borderline with a crop camera because of the diffraction. --Smial 09:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) []
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 17:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Ortenburg_-_Sammarei_44_-_Pfarrhaus.jpg

Ortenburg - Sammarei 44 - Pfarrhaus.jpg

  • Nomination The rectory in Sammarei, Ortenburg. --Mosbatho 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Halavar 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, it's too dark... --Tournasol7 05:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is it an oppose ? If no vote, no CR !--Jebulon 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Please see "Consensual review", rules section: an oppose is assumed unless stated otherwise. :) --Peulle 11:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tournasol7 but it may be fixable. --GRDN711 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it's okay. Good quality. --Steindy 19:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. I do not think it's too dark. --Hillopo2018 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Considering how dark the sky is, I think this could be unrealistically darkened. What time of day in what month was this photo shot? -- Ikan Kekek 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 05:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is sharp, perspective is ok, the sky is a little bit dark but it's good quality overall for me. --Sebring12Hrs 05:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Sebring12Hrs. --Zinnmann 07:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, probably very easily fixable. --Trougnouf 18:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Trougnouf 18:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Mute_swan_in_the_Semois_river_(DSC_8387).jpg

Mute swan in the Semois river (DSC 8387).jpg

  • Nomination Mute swan (Cygnus olor) flapping its wings in the Semois river (Bouillon, Belgium) --Trougnouf 08:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
  • Can you reduce the noise (especially in the dark part)? --Steindy 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • ✓ Done, thank you for reviewing --Trougnouf 09:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the noise is too much. --Steindy 19:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think it's acceptable, though I'm happy to denoise specific areas more. --Trougnouf 10:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've applied stronger denoising --Trougnouf 17:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Moroder 02:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay now. --Steindy 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty swan, bright light but OK. Nice photo overall. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose much tighter crop needed. --Kallerna 05:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Kallerna: Can you make an alternative version of your preferred crop with the lossless CropTool? I'm keeping this one as the nomination but I agree that an alternative crop would be nice. --Trougnouf 08:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Just crop a lot more. Now most of the photo is just background. --Kallerna 15:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice quality. NightWolf1223 19:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --NightWolf1223 19:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Arot_DSCF2278.jpg

Arot DSCF2278.jpg

  • Nomination L'Arot dans le vallon de l'Ar à Germiny en Meurthe-et-Moselle. --Musicaline 18:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfavorable color balance; probably the exposure time was too long here --Hillopo2018 08:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Color balace looks ok. The sky may be a bit overexposed, but acceptable IMHO. --C messier 15:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If you dial down the highlights, I will be able to support. -- Ikan Kekek 05:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 20:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jebulon --Moroder 02:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is an important component of image quality. And this one is not good enough -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar + needs english description. --Kallerna 05:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jebulon. As far as I know an English description might be nice, but it is not required. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 11:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The top-right is a bit overexposed, I would support with a bit of a crop of the right but I am totally Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as it is. --Trougnouf 18:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Tue 28 Sep → Wed 06 Oct
  • Wed 29 Sep → Thu 07 Oct
  • Thu 30 Sep → Fri 08 Oct
  • Fri 01 Oct → Sat 09 Oct
  • Sat 02 Oct → Sun 10 Oct
  • Sun 03 Oct → Mon 11 Oct
  • Mon 04 Oct → Tue 12 Oct
  • Tue 05 Oct → Wed 13 Oct
  • Wed 06 Oct → Thu 14 Oct