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 November 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 November 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 November 20 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[edit]

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]] 03:14, 20 November 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


November 19, 2023[edit]

November 18, 2023[edit]

November 17, 2023[edit]

November 16, 2023[edit]

November 15, 2023[edit]

November 14, 2023[edit]

November 13, 2023[edit]

November 12, 2023[edit]

November 11, 2023[edit]

November 10, 2023[edit]

November 9, 2023[edit]

November 8, 2023[edit]

November 7, 2023[edit]

November 6, 2023[edit]

November 5, 2023[edit]

October 31, 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:Confluence_de_l'Arve_et_du_Rhône.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La confluence de l'Arve dans le Rhône à Genève en octobre 2023. --Espandero 20:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Large parts of this are not very sharp, it's slightly tilted, and the mountains in the background are looking unnaturally blue. --Plozessor 04:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    I tried something but I'm not sure I can fix the sharpness of the right part of the picture. Let me know. - Espandero 17:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but I think we can't make this a QI, it is too blurry and also the colors are not natural. --Plozessor 13:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    Plozessor: which of the colours? The mountains in the background are really far away so to me it's normal that they're not as colorful as the rest. For the blurry parts I guess if I make the file as big as a normal picture (so not a panorama but more like this file) the quality should be sufficient enough to make it QI. I tried uploading a new version and I'd be grateful if you could check it out. Thanks, Espandero 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    Sharpness still doesn't look good in full resolution, but reduced to 4 MP it's halfway acceptable. However, the mountains in the background are still blue (#96b9f1) - unless those are special mountains full of blue trees, this is unnatural because usually there are trees and trees and mostly green, not blue. Also, the picture is still a bit tilted (you see that the buildings are tilted outwards). --Plozessor 05:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
     Info Reset to "/Decline". Please change to "/Discuss" if you wish to challenge the opposing vote, not to "/Nomination". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    Plozessor I can work on the tilt but the background is what it is. I'm not going to colour it green because it would be artificial. The default value (without any Lightroom setting) is #78A3D7. The hill is about 19 km away from the point of view. Given that it was not a perfect sunny day it feels normal to me to not have perfect colours on objects far away. This is a feature I'm used to in my pictures and I don't see any way of cleaning up. I'm seeing similar things on files you made (1) so it seems it's not a problem from my camera or settings. I would rather suggest it's because of dust in the air and atmospheric conditions in general. Thank you for your time anyway. - Espandero 14:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO this looks good enough for such an image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_Ioniq_5_N_Auto_Zuerich_2023_1X7A0965.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hyundai Ioniq 5 N at Auto Zuerich 2023.--Alexander-93 20:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose A relatively large part of the panels appears clipped/overexposed. --C messier 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose Indeed the shadows are too dark, that could probably be fixed though. --Plozessor 05:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:In_memory_of_fallen_soldiers._Kyiv,_Ukraine.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination In memory of fallen soldiers. Kyiv, Ukraine --Ввласенко 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Image seems underexposed, especially the sky. --Jay.Jarosz 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New treatment -- Ввласенко 10:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I'm not seeing much of a difference unfortunately :/ Overall the image could still use an exposure bump. Then on the sky specifically, increase saturation or decrease warmth and increase whites --Jay.Jarosz 04:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your advice, but I'm satisfied with the image. -- Ввласенко 07:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Info Reset to "/Decline". Please do not change images with votes back to "/Nomination". If you wish to challenge the opposing vote, please change "/Decline" to "/Discuss" to send the photo to consensual review. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment What are you talking about?-- Ввласенко 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment If a picture has been declined, you are not allowed to reset it to "nomination". If you want to object the decline, you can set it to "discuss". --Plozessor 15:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment You accuse me of something I didn't do.-- Ввласенко 16:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment No one accused YOU of anything. Someone (might as well have been someone else or even a technical error) seemingly reset this from "Declined" to "Nomination", and we explained that this is not allowed. --Plozessor 17:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose Slightly underexposed, and visible noise even at 3 MP. --Plozessor (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)</gallery>
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Nebbia_e_nuvole_sulla_campagna_in_Rignano_sull'Arno_-_Frazione_Bombone.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fog and clouds over the countryside in Rignano sull'Arno - Frazione Bombone.--Anna.Massini 11:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 11:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Sorry, second view. Not good enough. It's not easy to find QIC at the WLM winners. --XRay 12:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately, the quality at 100% is not up to standard in my opinion: artifacts, overprocessed elements, apparent interpolation due to digital zoom. I'm sorry to reject it; perhaps the picture should be discussed in the CR. Best regards, --Radomianin 19:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too oversharpened. --Jay.Jarosz 05:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far from QI. Even at 3 MP it looks extremely overcontrasted and oversharpened with pitch black shadows, white halos around objects, massive signs of NR and significant lack of details. --Plozessor 07:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful view, massive overprocessing. A pity. --Smial 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 20:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Besko_Wisłok_2015.08.22_p.jpg[edit]

*  Comment Author has fixed that but not commented here. --Plozessor 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful composition and good quality now as I think. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just about acceptable now. --Plozessor 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Not very sharp indeed, but good enough --Jakubhal 07:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Longford_St._Mel's_Cathedral_Angel_holding_a_censer_2019_08_23.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture of an angel in St. Mel' Cathedral, Longford, Co. Longford, Ireland. --AFBorchert 07:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Seems under exposed? Also the composition is tilted for no clear reason. --Jay.Jarosz 03:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Agree with both of you ;) It IS a good picture but there's no obvious reason for the tilt. You should fix the perspective, and on that occasion increase exposure a bit. --Plozessor 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Museo_Británico,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2022-11-26,_DD_57-59_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination British Museum, London, England --Poco a poco 07:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The people at the bottom left look heavily distorted. Possible to fix the distortion or crop them out? --ThibautRe 18:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --Poco a poco 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    Slightly greenish? --ArildV 09:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support New version is fine for me. --ArildV 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Seems too green tinted? --Jay.Jarosz 03:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose There's very slight green tint (the white part of the sign is #6f7d71), but it's more the overall darkness, lack of sharpness and the perspective distortion (right side is leaning inwards) that concerns me. --Plozessor 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version with adjusted crop, perspective, brightness and WB Poco a poco 11:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Rottweil,_straatzicht_Hochbrücktorstrasse_IMG_4856_2023-04-30_18.23.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rottweil-Germany, street view Hochbrücktorstrasse --Michielverbeek 07:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Are you sure about the WB for all 3 photos? --ArildV 13:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question What is wrong with the white balance? Well I have tried to avoid white skies. Three photos, so the last one not? --Michielverbeek 15:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The color balance looks odd to me, maybe a little brown/yellow. Let's get a second opinion. --ArildV 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed that white balance looks odd. Was going to oppose for this reason before even reading this thread.--Jay.Jarosz 19:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment As others said, white balance (and also exposure) is way off with these three pictures. Fix that and I'll support all of them. (You can try to use the window braces as reference for white.) --Plozessor 05:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I have ✓ Done a whitebalance improvement, more blue and less yellow --Michielverbeek 07:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Color balance is better now, but still all these pictures are quite opaque and dark. --Plozessor 08:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The sky was very grey and I did not cycle the other day --Michielverbeek 06:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It should still be possible to increase brightness in processing. I understand that Jay declined this and Michiel disagrees, so moving to discussion. --Plozessor 07:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness is just about acceptable, but it is too dark overall. Should not be hard to increase exposure or brighten the shadows in raw conversion or processing. --Plozessor 05:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Another version, ✓ Done increase brightness --Michielverbeek 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Rottweil,_straatzicht_Hauptstrasse_IMG_4882_2023-05-01_12.10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rottweil-Germany, street view Hauptstrasse --Michielverbeek 07:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose White balance is unnatural (too brownish/yellowish) --Jay.Jarosz 20:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have ✓ Done a whitebalance improvement, more blue and less yellow --Michielverbeek 07:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I change to nomination for getting a 2nd review and yes the sky was very grey that day --Michielverbeek 06:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You can't change "Declined" to "Nomination". Changed it to "Discuss" now. --Plozessor 07:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness is just about acceptable, but it is too dark overall. Should not be hard to increase exposure or brighten the shadows in raw conversion or processing. --Plozessor 05:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC
  •  Comment Another version, ✓ Done increase brightness --Michielverbeek 07:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Rottweil,_Schwarzes_Tor_IMG_4899_2023-05-01_12.44.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rottweil-Germany, town gate: Schwarzes Tor --Michielverbeek 07:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose White balance is unnatural (too brownish/yellowish). I'm open to changing my vote if this is corrected. --Jay.Jarosz 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have ✓ Done a whitebalance improvement, more blue and less yellow --Michielverbeek 07:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I change to nomination for getting a 2nd review and yes the sky was very grey that day --Michielverbeek 06:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You can't change "Declined" to "Nomination". Changed it to "Discuss" now. --Plozessor 07:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness is just about acceptable, but it is too dark overall. Should not be hard to increase exposure or brighten the shadows in raw conversion or processing. --Plozessor 05:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Another version, ✓ Done increase brightness --Michielverbeek 07:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The issue isn't sharpness or brightness, but at worst, the noise. --Sebring12Hrs 12:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:VdA_square_rue_cezanne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Public garden, Rue Cézanne, in Villeneuve d'Ascq, France --Velvet 08:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Image lacks depth. Would look better if taken from a higher angle. --Jay.Jarosz 15:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    weak  Support Picture is halfway ok, but I can't imagine that you can't get better quality with a Sigma dp1 quattro. Looks like you just took the JPG from the camera instead of manually converting the raw file (which would give you options to brighten the shadows etc.). --Plozessor 13:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Plozessor, thank you for your review. I'm not sure I understand your comment (in fact, the image is developed from the raw file). I've softened the shadows a bit, if that's what you mean.--Velvet 17:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if we're talking past each other. The picture (both the new and the old version) have dark areas that are pitch black. The raw file should have enough information to restore some details for these areas; in Adobe products this would be done by increasing "Shadows". --Plozessor 18:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually the new version is better, probably my browser loaded old version from cache. Sorry! --Plozessor 07:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bronze_casting_at_Kunstgießerei_München_01_-_cropped.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze casting at Kunstgießerei München → cropped (by Kritzolina) -- Radomianin 09:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The uncropped image is already QI. --XRay 09:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Many thanks for your comment, that is correct. But additionally, the cropped version has been significantly improved in terms of noise and sharpening. Best, -- Radomianin 10:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I do see the possibility and also the necessity of nominating images developed in different ways separately (for example, a color and a black and white image of the same shot), but I find it very difficult to do so for a cropped photo. Even if there are additional improvements, it is not an independent development for me. I would expect better noise reduction at the source. --XRay 11:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your insightful perspectives. Best regards, -- Radomianin 11:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I prefer to send the nomination to the discussion. A vote is required, but IMO in this case it hopefully should be allowed to send it to discussion without vote. --XRay 12:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this constructive suggestion; it is certainly a good idea. Best, -- Radomianin 12:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info Please see Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#Extracted_images_(origin_already_QI). --XRay 06:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I'll review the photo independently of the original. --XRay 06:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support No issue with the different versions. As with all shots from this series, they are of borderline quality, but this one seems sharp and detailed enough at 3 MP so supporting it. --Plozessor 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really? Two almost identical images should not have separate QI-status. --Kallerna 20:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 05:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

File:NSG-00597.01_Kreuzbuckel_H.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waldaschaff, nature reserve 00597.01 'Kreuzbuckel' --KaiBorgeest 22:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Overexposed/burnt leaves and tree trunks. --C messier 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose Would be great if the blown-out trunks could be fixed (which should be easy to do with a new raw conversion.) (Picture looks like JPG from camera, not manually processed raw file.) --Plozessor 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_rowing_in_Varanasi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A teenager rowing a boat on the Ganges River in Varanasi while the sun rises. --Jay.Jarosz 11:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Looks posterized and lacks details. Sorry --Imehling 17:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment It's not posterized. The post-processing mostly consisted of increasing exposure and contrast and reducing noise. Color tones unchanged. As for detail, it not as relevant for a silhouette shot. --Jay.Jarosz 19:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Even at 5 MP, the JPG and NR artifacts are clearly visible. Even at 0.9 MP you still see these effects. --Plozessor 19:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This looks very unnatural indeed. Post-processing created a lot of artifacts and this looks very unnatural. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor and Robert --Jakubhal 05:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:172_Kölner_Str._Düsseldorf,_Germany.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building 172 Kölner Str. --Reda Kerbouche 10:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Low-quality smartphone picture, in my opinion not a QI. --Plozessor 19:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, very low level of details --Jakubhal 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 08:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --MB-one 11:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. We shouldn't dismiss a photo as unusable because it was taken with a smartphone. -- Spurzem 22:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*  Comment I don't want to dismiss it "because it was taken with a smartphone". I want to dismiss it because it has poor quality. (And it has poor quality because it was taken with a smartphone, though there are also some smartphone pictures with acceptable quality.) --Plozessor 06:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*  Comment @User:Spurzem: Please do not exaggerate. If an image does not get promoted to QI, this does not mean that it is unusable. E.g., not even a single one among the top ten of my most heavily used photographs is a QI. At least one of them has less than 2 MP and #11 was recently denied QI status because someone found that it is not sharp enough in their opinion, whereas #12 is a QI. On the other hand, lots of quality images are not used outside Commons. And a QI of a frequently photographed subject or a wonderful closeup image may be much less usable than a rather average photo of a subject for which there are hardly any images on Commons or which illustrates a subject very well. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My standard comment for smartphone pictures: lacks details and looks overprocessed. There are some quite good smartphone pictures but this isn't one of them in my view. --Imehling 17:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Washed out colours. --Kallerna 20:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20210715_Απείρανθος_7362.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alley in Apeiranthos, Naxos. --C messier 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose The woman disturbs. I would send her away or retouch. -- Spurzem 22:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    Not really, but I see I have a similar photo without a person visible. --C messier 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support Not a problem to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with Spurzem --Jay.Jarosz 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The woman walking away seems a bit random to me but doesn't not destroy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan.--Ermell 15:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Hanuma_La_-_Zingchen_-_Yaks_-_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zanskar Trek - Yaks between Hanuma La and Zingchen River / Ladakh, India --Imehling 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Not a good composition in my opinion. Not enough depth between foreground and background. The yaks are mostly looking away from the camera. The ones that are, aren't in clear focus. --Jay.Jarosz 17:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, I think a lot of pictures with worse composition have been promoted here. --Imehling 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Agree with Imehling. The picture is sharp enough, shows yaks' fronts, and has no major technical defects. --Plozessor 17:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. As Jay.Jarosz: Poor composition -- Spurzem 11:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition --Milseburg 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support: Seems acceptable to me as a picture of part of a herd, especially inasmuch as most of them are clearly in motion from the viewer's right to left. -- Ikan Kekek 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. Not a FP, but good enough for QI. --C messier 13:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:গ্রাম_বাংলার_বায়োস্কোপ.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bioscope by User:Frameofashik --Wasiul Bahar 07:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Interesting motif and good to me, but you need to give the photographer credit in the nomination. Please follow the directions at the top of the page for how to nominate photos by other Wikimedians. Also, the file description should be improved to make it more encyclopedic. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I missed the fact that there are no categories. Suitable categories need to be added before this photo should be promoted. -- Ikan Kekek 08:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The crop seems too wide. Subject is not in clear focus. --Jay.Jarosz 15:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Info Categorization is a bit tricky here. I added Category:Bioscope, where several of these devices from the Indian subcontinent can be found and Category:Clowns for the operator. "Bioscope" is a name for many different devices, see e.g. [:https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/bioscope/] where a video of a device very similar to that on the photo is shown. Category:Bioskop appears to be for a single device from Germany that looks quite different. Anyway, I am sending this to CR because there is both a supporting and an opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment No issues with the crop, we see the device in its natural environment, that seems fine. Quality is borderline but still acceptable. I'd support this if nomination would be fixed (giving credit to the photographer). --Plozessor 06:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
@Plozessor I fixed the nomination part. --Wasiul Bahar 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 Support I think the picture is good and the crop is ok. --Plozessor 06:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm willing to support, but Wasiul, please make this type of nomination correctly from now on. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ Ikan Kekek sorry for the mistake. I used QI nominator tool and I mistakenly erased the part of uploader name while changing the caption for QI nomination. I corrected that now. --Wasiul Bahar 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I corrected the author name and added a link to their talk page because the respective user page is empty. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition. --Kallerna 20:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna --Sandro Halank 13:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 13:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Sun 12 Nov → Mon 20 Nov
  • Mon 13 Nov → Tue 21 Nov
  • Tue 14 Nov → Wed 22 Nov
  • Wed 15 Nov → Thu 23 Nov
  • Thu 16 Nov → Fri 24 Nov
  • Fri 17 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
  • Sat 18 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
  • Sun 19 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
  • Mon 20 Nov → Tue 28 Nov