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 17 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]] 02:42, 17 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 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]

November 4, 2023[edit]

November 2, 2023[edit]

November 1, 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: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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20090802_distomo05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Karakolithos National Resistance Memorial. By User:Jeanhousen --L'OrfeoGreco 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit blurry for a static object. Dust spot in the sky in middle. --Tagooty 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose There is no Freedom of Panorama in Greece, so it isn't allowed to upload a recent artwork with a license compatible with Commons without the permission of the copyright holder. --C messier 13:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Are we really expecting copyright issues from a public war memorial? :/ --Jay.Jarosz 04:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Please see COM:PCP. --C messier 11:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Has the Greek government ever filed a copyright claim over photos of a public monument? I'm unable to find any such precedent and thus I'd argue there's not "significant doubt" about the freedom of the file. Governments build monuments to immortalize a moment in time and to have it be seen and remembered by as many people as possible. --Jay.Jarosz 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I agree with Jay Jarosz's view. I find this particular argument a bit far fetched.L'OrfeoGreco 14:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment As for image quality, here are some things that would need fixing: noise reduction, spot removal, improved sharpness / de-blur. --Jay.Jarosz 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment It isn't far fetched; this photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted artwork (the artwork isn't in public domain the sculptor is still alive). Again read COM:PCP (or the notice in the category). --C messier 16:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The work belongs to the Prefecture of Viotia, not the sculpter. Either way, is there a single example from anywhere in the world of a government or sculpter making a copyright claim against a photo of a public monument? --Jay.Jarosz 19:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Comment Do you understand that the precautionary principle is an official policy of Commons? Anyway, [1].--C messier 19:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The picture is not allowed in Commons at all and should be deleted. It violates Greek laws - whether those are feasible, and whether it is feasible that Commons follows laws, is not something to be discussed here. --Plozessor 10:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the rules of Commons make it almost impossible to defend images suspected of infringing the rights of the original artist, even though the likelihood of the artist coming forward to claim them is slim. Recently, my old photo of anonymous graffiti was removed on the grounds that the artist might now emerge and assert their rights in a court in China, where the protection of authors' rights has recently been strengthened. It seems inevitable that someone on Commons will eventually feel compelled to safeguard the rights of the original sculptor. I recommend you reviewing the Freedom of Panorama page to understand which images are permissible from each country. --Jakubhal 14:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not acceptable on Commons according to the template {{NoFoP-category}} in Category:Karakolithos National Resistance Memorial. It should be very probably deleted, even though this might be a bit more difficult than usual because it is used on several wikis. There appear to be quite a lot of other images in this category which are also not acceptable. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:22, 16 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)
  • Discussion
     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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 14:06, 16 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)
  • Discussion  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)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bonda_from_Kerala_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aloo bonda with chutney from Kerala --Ganesh Mohan T 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the image is blurry and the composition is questionable. --Jay.Jarosz 04:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The food is halfway sharp, but everything else is massively OOF. --Plozessor 06:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see no problem with sharpness and DOF, but composition and lighting are not good enough for food photography. --Smial 09:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per smial, Composition is not good enough. It would get support if there were no distractions beside the plate and if the plate was in the middle of the frame. --Wasiul Bahar 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 19:37, 16 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)
  •  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)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Mysuru_Rail_Museum_-_Maharani_Saloon_-_Corridor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mysuru Rail Museum - Corridor of Maharani Saloon --Imehling 07:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Weak oppose Would have been better with higher f-number, now there's only a small sharp area ... --Plozessor 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, but it was too dark for that and I had no tripod with me. --Imehling 09:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Nice scene but execution and post processing could have been better. Most of the image is not sharp. --Jay.Jarosz 20:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. Low DOF in full resolution, but acceptable for an a4 size print. --Smial 08:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, I don't think this one was successful, sorry.--Peulle 09:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and a bit unsharp and noisy. You probably couldn't have done better, so it's not your fault, but the result is not quite a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20210715_Απείρανθος_7362.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alley in Apeiranthos, Naxos. --C messier 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  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)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 15:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bronze_casting_in_Kunstgießerei_München_57.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze casting in Kunstgießerei München - pouring the hot liquid bronze into the prepared forms --Kritzolina 20:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Nice shot, but unfortunately nothing really in focus.--Alexander-93 20:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    *  Support. Due to the lighting conditions, the photo was taken at aperture 3.6 and 1000 ISO, so the sharpness may leave a little to be desired. Otherwise we tend to excuse major quality defects with external circumstances. Why not here? I would like to discuss whether classification as QI is not possible after all. -- Spurzem 23:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Not sure why we should tolerate "major quality defects" when it comes to rating "quality images". This picture is extremely unsharp, it has extremely low detail, it has serious artifacts of noise reduction. If the camera can't take good pictures at ISO 1000 then don't use ISO 1000. With a tripod / a better camera / higher ISO and higher NR / lower ISO and a more steady hand / etc it would have been possible to take a way better picture. --Plozessor 12:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor issues, difficult lighting situation. Good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 10:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Even with 3 MP resolution (recommended for A4 size print), this picture looks very blurred. --Plozessor 12:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alexander-93 and Plozessor. Sorry. --MB-one 16:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alexander-93. --Sebring12Hrs 14:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --MB-one (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Suleiman_mosque_Istanbul_July_2022-19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior of the Suleyman Mosque, Istanbul -- Alvesgaspar 14:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The shadows seem too dark (shadow clipping?). Also there's perspective warp / distortion (see minarets for example) --Jay.Jarosz 16:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Towers are a bit distorted by the perspective correction, but I like the composition. Shadow aren't too dark to me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too dark, towers are distorted, that would probably be acceptable if the overall quality was better. But the majority of the mosque is not really sharp. If the shadows are brightened, the picture is slightly vertically compressed (to reduce the distortion) and maybe if it is a bit sharpened, I might support it. --Plozessor 16:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are acceptable, but the distortion isn't. --Milseburg 19:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the pitch black shadows. -- Ikan Kekek 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 15 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)
  • Discussion
     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)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:58, 16 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Cieszowa_cmentarz_żydowski_macewy6_21.10.2012_p.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jewish gravestones in Cieszowa, Poland. By User:Przykuta --Mechanik rowerowy 18:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wonderful! Thanks for bringing this one to Commons! --Mosbatho 21:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a very valuable photo, but the left tombstone is full of chromatic aberrations --Jakubhal 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support Ok, much better after ArildV's edit --Jakubhal 05:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Prompted to look for them, I saw them. You can see them if you look at the sides of anything 3-dimensional, such as the letters. -- Ikan Kekek 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Yes, left tombstone appears blurred, though it actually seems to be CA resulting in that impression. CA is also visible as a red halo on the left edge of the left stone. Fix that and you'll get my full support for this picture. --Plozessor 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Has been fixed, now this is good. --Plozessor 05:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  InfoI gave it a shot. New version. --ArildV 20:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me now. -- Ikan Kekek 00:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Perhaps good quality, but a bit dark and no good composition. The crop below is too tight. -- Spurzem 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment New slightly lighter version uploaded. For obvious reasons I cant change the crop--ArildV 14:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Thu 09 Nov → Fri 17 Nov
  • Fri 10 Nov → Sat 18 Nov
  • Sat 11 Nov → Sun 19 Nov
  • 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