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 August 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 August 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 August 24 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]] 06:40, 24 August 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


August 24, 2023[edit]

August 23, 2023[edit]

August 22, 2023[edit]

August 21, 2023[edit]

August 20, 2023[edit]

August 19, 2023[edit]

August 18, 2023[edit]

August 17, 2023[edit]

August 16, 2023[edit]

August 15, 2023[edit]

August 14, 2023[edit]

August 13, 2023[edit]

August 12, 2023[edit]

August 10, 2023[edit]

August 9, 2023[edit]

August 8, 2023[edit]

August 3, 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:Graceland_Cemetery,_Chicago_(2023)_-_25.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graceland Cemetery, Chicago --Another Believer 17:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Isiwal 04:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Too low level of details --Jakubhal 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Friedhof_Melaten_-_Köln_-_Familiengrab_Millowitsch.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of the german Entertainer Millowitsch in Cologne --Grunpfnul 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Front part not sharp enough because of low f-value --Michielverbeek 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    Lets discuss --Grunpfnul 05:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Smial 07:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I can't read the writing on the grave lights either, but I think that the photo is sharp enough overall. The picture looks good to me. -- Spurzem 10:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hirse_003_2023_08_18.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Collage of different seeds: Kindergarten craft object from 1986
    --F. Riedelio 17:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Wrong focus in my view --Basile Morin 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support New improved version. IMO sharp enough for QI. --F. Riedelio 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
     Info You cannot vote for your own photo. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_(LU),_Grund_und_Église_Saint-Jean_--_2023_--_8132.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Grund district and Église Saint-Jean in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg --XRay 04:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Slightly blurred/out of focus. --Tagooty 04:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpness improved. I'm not sure, may be it's good enough. --XRay 04:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Not tack sharp, but it was a gray day. Nice view and nice sky. -- Ikan Kekek 05:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Both versions. Photos with very soft lighting often tend to look blurrier than those taken in harsh, direct sunlight, which therefore have higher local contrasts. --Smial 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Could be sharper, but good enough --Jakubhal 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Not the best composition but good quality -- Spurzem 17:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Waregem,_de_Sint-Amandus-en-Blasius_Kerk_IMG_6670_2023-06-06_13.03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waregem in Belgium, church: the Sint-Amandus-en-Blasius Kerk --Michielverbeek 05:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Underexposed and the top of the church is unsharp. --Ermell 08:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell, especially because of the underexposure, which is drastic to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The exposure as such is not so wrong, because some highlights are already (unavoidably) somewhat overexposed. If you would just expose the image brighter in general, some bright details would be destroyed. I would try to raise the mid-tones a bit via s-curving. The overall image sharpness is not that great, but thanks to the image resolution it is quite sufficient for an A4 print. Would support if the midtones could be enhanced. --Smial 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Extremely unterexposed. A pity. -- Spurzem 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris_8e_-_Grand_Palais_-_L'Immortalité_devançant_le_Temps_(Georges_Récipon).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Immortality Outstripping Time by Georges Récipon --Romainbehar 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion

 Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Good picture, but a poor file description. At least, the place should be mentioned. Geocoding would be fine, too. --Palauenc05 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose For now, because there is no reaction to my comment. --Palauenc05 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose vote scratched because of new file description. --Palauenc05 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, and the place is stated in the filename: Grand Palais, 8ieme arrondissement, Paris. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It is very good that the filename is kept so detailed, but unfortunately files on commons are often arbitrarily renamed and moved because someone likes it better. A good image description also facilitates possible translations into other languages and the use of Wikidata. --Smial 08:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Indeed, anything else would have surprised me. Image page requirement 3 says a QI should "... have an accurate description on the file page." Is a problem to follow this rule? Instead ignore my hint? I would have scratched my oppose vote, if that little correction had been done. --Palauenc05 11:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why someone would arbitrarily change a filename that contained the place name, but I added the place name to both file descriptions. If it's not specific enough, please edit it. -- Ikan Kekek 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I also don't understand why anyone would do that, but the stupid thing is: it's done and it happens every now and then. File names are not protected from any craziness here on commons. --Smial 07:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The category mentions the place of the sculpture. --Sebring12Hrs 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris_8e_-_Grand_Palais_-_L'Harmonie_triomphant_de_la_Discorde_(Georges_Récipon).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Harmony Triumphing over Discord by Georges Récipon --Romainbehar 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Good picture, but a poor file description. At least, the place should be mentioned. Geocoding would be fine, too. --Palauenc05 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose For now, because there is no reaction to my comment. --Palauenc05 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose vote scratched because of new file description. --Palauenc05 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, and the place is named in the filename. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Indeed, anything else would have surprised me. Image page requirement 3 says a QI should "... have an accurate description on the file page." Is a problem to follow this rule? Instead ignore my hint? I would have scratched my oppose vote, if that little correction had been done. --Palauenc05 11:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good and good post-compression. --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Jemeppe_sur_Sambre,_produktiebedrijf_INOVYN_Manufacturing_IMG_6322_2023-06-02_14.26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jemeppe sur Sambre in Belgium, manufacturing company INOVYN Manufacturing --Michielverbeek 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose blurry at the sides --Grunpfnul 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    I did the highest possible f-value. A crop at the left and the right is an option. --Michielverbeek 20:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Theotokos_of_Smolensk_Bogoyavlensky_Monastery_Uglich_2023-07-22_7443.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Theotokos of Smolensk in Bogoyavlensky Monastery in Uglich --Mike1979 Russia 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Right part is leaning to the right --Michielverbeek 07:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info The porch of the church is not vertical. See the living house on the right. --Mike1979 Russia 08:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me, but it needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support If that's the way it looks, that's fine. -- Ikan Kekek 05:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 05:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bâtiment_à_Šibenik_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bâtiment à Šibenik. --Sebring12Hrs 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfavorable recording time. The shadow bothers a lot. -- Spurzem 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info The street is very thight and the house is tall. I think there are shadows at every hour in a day. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me --Jakubhal 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 05:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bâtiment_à_Šibenik.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bâtiment à Šibenik. --Sebring12Hrs 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Disturbing shadow. -- Spurzem 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The balcony shades at every hour. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shadow cast gives the facade structure and life. And it is not so strong that nothing would be visible in the dark areas. I like that. Also, the image is sharp and the perspective is just natural in such narrow streets. --Smial 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me also --Jakubhal 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 05:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Audi_80_B1_Classic-Days_2022_DSC_0239.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audi 80 B1 at Classic-Days Düsseldorf 2022.--Alexander-93 15:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Left side too dark -- Spurzem 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me at full size. It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I said above. I think the lack could be improved. -- Spurzem 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Left side is shadowed but IMO not too dark --Michielverbeek 19:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Spurzem that mid-tones left side could be increased to permit better rendition and focus on car model. --GRDN711 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure about the shadow, but I don't like the bisected people in the background. -- Ikan Kekek 05:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:MSI_Bravo_17_(0017FK-007)-USB-C_port_large_PNr°0761.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The USB-C port of a MSI Bravo 17 laptop --D-Kuru 06:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF --Аныл Озташ 12:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose The photo is quite interesting for comparison with the excellent focus stacked version of the same subject. Standing alone, however, the depth of field is indeed insufficient, or the focus is wrong. --Smial 10:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment This image was taken with a very specialised macro lens that has a very tiny DOF. So what you see is pretty much what you get when you don't use any additional software (which was kinda the point with this image). To give you an better idea for this: Depending on the setup, putting down your leg on the parquet floor next to the tripod can move the object out of focus (If you watch through the viewfinder while doing so you can actually see it happen). An aperture of 32 does not help anything. BTW: Please ping me or I will miss images like this one! --D-Kuru (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment The MP-E is a nice lens, but should be subject to the same optical laws as any other. I would have put the main focus on the innards of the socket, because that is what is interesting about USB-C. You would still recognize that there is a metal frame, even if it is not perfectly sharp. --Smial 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You worked with what you had, but that blur is not satisfying to me as a viewer. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Graceland_Cemetery,_Chicago_(2023)_-_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graceland Cemetery, Chicago --Another Believer 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Too low level of details --Jakubhal 05:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Basically, the image is good enough to be printed in A4 size. But it has a bit too much of everything: a bit too much colour saturation, a bit too high contrast, a bit too much noise reduction, a bit too much post-sharpening and it seems a bit crooked to me. Isn't there a default setting of "natural colours" instead of "vivid" on the iphone?--Smial 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Graceland_Cemetery,_Chicago_(2023)_-_46.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graceland Cemetery, Chicago --Another Believer 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose  Level of detail too low --Jakubhal 05:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Week  Support for me. Sharpness could be better, but I see a good composition and good colors. -- Spurzem 16:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Support Per Spurzem. --Sebring12Hrs 06:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal. Not close to a quality image to me - unsharp, oversharpened, as typical of cellphone pics that don't look good at full size (some do). -- Ikan Kekek 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal.--Peulle 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Canon_EF-M_32mm_F1.4_STM_lens-top_capped_PNr°0804.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The top capped side of a Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens --D-Kuru 07:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 07:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background colouring/shadow fixable? --Аныл Озташ 12:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no lacks. -- Spurzem 12:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo of the lens is very good, but there are subtle bands of purple in the background on the upper right that should be eliminated. I'll oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 05:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Capitolium_2_(Paestum).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Capitolium (Paestum) --PaestumPaestum 14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  OpposeToo much not interesting grass in the foreground and the main part of the photo (the rocks) is oversharpened --Michielverbeek 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) bottom crop
  •  Support I disagree, it is sharp, and the big foregroun is part of the ruins, it is a choice of the photograph. QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Completely fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:En_Ooru_Village_-_Reed_Cutter_-_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reed Cutter in En Ooru Tribal Village / Wayanad, Kerala --Imehling 12:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose There seems to be some motion blur (look at the hair) --FlocciNivis 08:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I think this isn't so bad? --Imehling 18:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Not 100% sharp at pixel level, but easily sufficient for a4-size printout or even more because of the high image resolution. --Smial 12:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 16 Aug → Thu 24 Aug
  • Thu 17 Aug → Fri 25 Aug
  • Fri 18 Aug → Sat 26 Aug
  • Sat 19 Aug → Sun 27 Aug
  • Sun 20 Aug → Mon 28 Aug
  • Mon 21 Aug → Tue 29 Aug
  • Tue 22 Aug → Wed 30 Aug
  • Wed 23 Aug → Thu 31 Aug
  • Thu 24 Aug → Fri 01 Sep