Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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


Technical requirements
[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 January 2025.
  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 January 2025.
  • 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 January 10 2025 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]] 13:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


January 10, 2025

[edit]

January 9, 2025

[edit]

January 8, 2025

[edit]

January 7, 2025

[edit]

January 6, 2025

[edit]

January 5, 2025

[edit]

January 4, 2025

[edit]

January 3, 2025

[edit]

January 2, 2025

[edit]

January 1, 2025

[edit]

December 31, 2024

[edit]

December 30, 2024

[edit]

December 28, 2024

[edit]

December 24, 2024

[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:Claas_Axion_820_&_Krone_BiG_X_600,_Grünfutterernte_in_Vorpommern_(2017).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Krone BiG X 600 forage harvester with Claas Axion 820 harvesting green forage in Western Pomerania, Germany --JoachimKohler-HB 01:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Sides are not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • It‘s the price to show the movement (rotating wheels). Other opinions? --JoachimKohler-HB 09:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Adequate combination of sharpness and effect IMO. --Plozessor 06:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Gravestone_of_the_Scharpff_Family.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This gravestone honors a couple, likely the Scharpff family. --Reda Kerbouche 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 12:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a smartphone picture, there are some NR artifacts but IMO it's still ok and - what QI mostly is about - the photographer did nothing wrong. Subject is sharp, background is not, light is good, composition is good. --Plozessor 06:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:2024-12-31_51._Erfurter_Silvesterlauf_2024_STP_4479.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Impressions of the 51st Erfurt Silvesterlauf 2024 --Stepro 02:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the face is cut and a big part of the photo is disturbing at the right. --Olivier LPB 09:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I can understand the second part, but I can't leave the first part as it is. The face is by no means cut off, but shown in full with plenty of space around it. Only the tips of the hair are cut off, which are not relevant for a photo of the face. --Stepro 09:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO photographs of children shouldn't be allowed at Commons. --XRay 08:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Then thousands of photos on Commons will have to be deleted. Is this view justified by anything? --Stepro 21:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Eine grundsätzliche Regel gibt es offenbar nicht, sonst gäbe es keine Kategorie "Photographs of Children". Wenn ich die Bildbeschreibung richtig verstehe, zeigt das Bild aber nicht irgendeine Zuschauerin (wie der Titel vermuten lässt), sondern die Siegerin eines Kinderlaufs? Dann würde es vermutlich unter die Ausnahme für Zeitgeschichte fallen und erlaubt sein. --Plozessor 04:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Das ist zum einen richtig, sie hat eine medial rezipierte Sportveranstaltung in ihrer Alterklasse gewonnen. Zum anderen haben alle Teilnehmer (bzw. bei Minderjährigen deren Eltern) bei der Anmeldung zugestimmt, dass die Fotos veröffentlicht werden dürfen. Von absolut allen > 1.000 Teilnehmern egal welchen Alters sind Fotos öffentlich im Netz zu finden (nicht von mir). --Stepro 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Hemaris_diffinis_MHNT_CUT_2010_0_393,_Morgan_territory,_Contra_Costa_Co,_California,_male_dorsal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hemaris diffinis - Dorsal side By User:Archaeodontosaurus --Olivier LPB 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pdanese 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The transition to the background around the head, right side, needs some rework --Poco a poco 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Skot 18:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As said, not a QI to me like this yet. --Poco a poco 09:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Poco a poco solved Olivier LPB 19:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Hemaris_diffinis_MHNT_CUT_2010_0_393,_Morgan_territory,_Contra_Costa_Co,_California,_male_ventral.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hemaris diffinis - △ Ventral sideBy User:Archaeodontosaurus --Olivier LPB 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Skot 18:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Same here, there are some areas left to be reworked to improve the transition to the background --Poco a poco 09:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Poco a poco solved Olivier LPB 19:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Pasaje_Çiçek,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_103-105_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Çiçek Passage, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose strong hdr artifacts --Grunpfnul 12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed,...and too much distortion, too. I cropped the top area, what do you think? --Poco a poco 23:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Basilique_du_Sacré-Cœur_de_Montmartre_-_Paris_-_GT-02_-_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Three points perspective of the Basilic of the Sacred Heart of Montmatre, Paris. --Terragio67 00:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry but to me, this perspective isn't realistic, the building is tilted. It seems it's falling. --Sebring12Hrs 01:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion, this image is based on the union of 12 photos and it is very tiring to correct any errors. So I would kindly need further opinions before intervening on the geometry of the composition. --Terragio67 06:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I understand ;) --Sebring12Hrs 10:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The domes are unnaturally narrow. Perhaps this can be corrected. -- Spurzem 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Replyː Thanks, maybe you mean that they should be made more like a two-point perspective? Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs and @Spurzem Doneː Verticals corrected, thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not about creating the verticals. The two domes are unnaturally distorted, especially the left one. I don't know if it can be corrected; I haven't tried. -- Spurzem 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

File:Lidzbark_Warmiński_2023_37_Collegiate_Church_Rectory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Collegiate Church Parish Rectory, 4 Church Square --Scotch Mist 06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top crop is too tight --Poco a poco 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Added implicit oppose. --Plozessor 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for review but 'tightness' on top crop not significant issue here imho. Perhaps we can have another review with promote or oppose to take to discussion? --Scotch Mist 15:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. Crop is tight but IMO not too tight. --Plozessor 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Cuerno_de_Oro,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-30,_DD_100-102_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Golden Horn, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Artefacts in buildings (see right) and red pixel in sea can be fixed but imho overall not sharp enough for QI. --Scotch Mist 08:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, QI to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry but previous comments still apply and image now appears 'underexposed' - if you look across the image you can see a number of processing artefacts (see ghostly 'apparitions' beneath tower on left). --Scotch Mist 13:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version where I cropped that ghost (which was also there in the first version). I also applied some denoising of the sea to hopefully address your comment "red pixel in sea". Yes, this version is darker, but I don't believe that the image is underexposed but rather think that the first one was overexposed. --Poco a poco 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Improved quality overall but you now seem to have produced long bands (mainly white) across the image above the sea (which perhaps didn't need de-noising to remove what may simply be one or two dead camera pixels) - imo am not sure it is worth further time and effort on your part to bring this particular image to QI level. --Scotch Mist 17:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Baños_romanos,_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-03,_DD_24-29_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Cropped building in the middle --Tuxyso 08:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Which is not obscuring or belonging to the subject. Looks like a resentment vote to me. Please, other opinions. I improved the image after the last CR. --Poco a poco 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • please no false insinuations. Sorry but the crop Looks unpleasant even as thumbnail. —Tuxyso 22:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but it's really a strange perspective, and with its 5.8:1 aspect ratio it doesn't look very pleasing. Also overall quality/sharpness is borderline (but from that alone it would be acceptable). --Plozessor 06:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Sharp enough regarding the rather high resolution. The perspective view is normal for this type of projection. If this were a landscape without right-angled buildings, nobody would notice. What bothers me more is that the cropping in the foreground is a bit tight. --Smial 13:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Per Smial. --Sebring12Hrs 14:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tuxyso. --Kallerna 09:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as I wrote at the first nomination a few weeks ago: Too tight a t the top. Although that building is not the subject, there are only a few pixels left, so that it looks as something is missing. --Milseburg (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Probably a tighter crop could help or just more experimental: using black color as cropping, the for illustrative purposes: https://ibb.co/y8ZxvgX and https://ibb.co/GTCR2FZ What do you think, Poco a poco? I used a similar black technique on this image Fossil-Mammutbaum-Miozän-Naturmuseum-Dortmund.jpg which became FP. --Tuxyso 18:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Intérieur_de_l'église_Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola_de_Rome.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior bacilica --Wilfredor 01:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 03:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I can clean the noise, however, its information, denoise is a destructive edition. Its big image in a dark condition shoot --Wilfredor 02:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still a great shot. I wouldn't apply more classic NR because, as said, it would remove details. You could try CameraRaw's AI denoise if you haven't done so though. --Plozessor 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Basilique_Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré,_Quebéc,_Canada_016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Basilica of Sainte-Anne --Wilfredor 01:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Great picture, but unfortunately with a stitching problem (hard transition between different focal planes above the right chandelier). --Plozessor 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Nasoni_(Rome).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nasoni --Wilfredor 01:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Beautiful, but very grainy --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 03:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Destructive denoise was applied in a new version --Wilfredor 02:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 17:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint_Amans_du_Fort_church_in_Aubin_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Amans du Fort church in Aubin, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 14:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion The building is titled to its right side, could you fix the perspective.--Reda Kerbouche 14:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}
     Comment I think it's very minor. --Sebring12Hrs 21:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_1er_-_Musée_du_Louvre_-_Exposition_Le_trésor_de_Notre-Dame_de_Paris_-_La_messe_du_chanoine_de_La_Porte_(Jean_Jouvenet).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of a mass --Romainbehar 16:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be a bit grainy/noisy, especially on the frame, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Detail is ok but it has uneven brightness (top is much brighter than bottom). Should apply a linear gradient mask for brightness during raw conversion. --Plozessor 05:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The top of the subject is not good (burnt) due to the light, it would be desirable to fix mainly on the upper part of the frame. As far as painting goes, IMHO this nomination is definitely GQ. --Terragio67 18:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is much too bright in places and probably cannot be improved. -- Spurzem 15:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good quality considering varied lighting at object location. --Scotch Mist 09:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Terragio67 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Almkopfbahn-Bergstation-2023.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Almkopfbahn, which leads from Bichlbach to the mountain station below the Alpkopf (Lechtal Alps) --Tuxyso 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry - but station is partially hidden by disturbing trees. --PtrQs 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imho it is a good framing and does not disturb --Tuxyso 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added implicit votes for the comments above. --Plozessor 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I changed to comment, because it is my own photo. --Tuxyso 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry! --Plozessor 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the framing per Tuxyso. Personally I'd change the curve a bit to brighten the shadows and mid-tones, but it's still acceptable as is. --Plozessor 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is amazing and the subject is clearly visible. --Sebring12Hrs 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • thank Nikon for the Z 70-200 f2.8 lens :-) —Tuxyso 18:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support High quality and no problem with composition/framing imo.--ArildV 07:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per PtrQs, main subject is good, but the branches are too large and disturbing and are hiding a bit of the building. --Milseburg 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 02 Jan → Fri 10 Jan
  • Fri 03 Jan → Sat 11 Jan
  • Sat 04 Jan → Sun 12 Jan
  • Sun 05 Jan → Mon 13 Jan
  • Mon 06 Jan → Tue 14 Jan
  • Tue 07 Jan → Wed 15 Jan
  • Wed 08 Jan → Thu 16 Jan
  • Thu 09 Jan → Fri 17 Jan
  • Fri 10 Jan → Sat 18 Jan