Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 February 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 February 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 February 14 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]] 09:38, 14 February 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).


February 14, 2025

[edit]

February 13, 2025

[edit]

February 12, 2025

[edit]

February 11, 2025

[edit]

February 10, 2025

[edit]

February 9, 2025

[edit]

February 8, 2025

[edit]

February 7, 2025

[edit]

February 6, 2025

[edit]

February 5, 2025

[edit]

February 4, 2025

[edit]

February 3, 2025

[edit]

February 2, 2025

[edit]

February 1, 2025

[edit]

January 29, 2025

[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:Rue_des_Ursulines_Street,_Quebec_city_downtown,_Quebec,_Canada.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Quebec city downtown --Wilfredor 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice photo, but very noisy, you could try denoise it and upload a new version --Горбунова М.С. 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    The noise add dramatic information to the composition. --Wilfredor 02:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Black line on top. --Kallerna 07:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Port-Sainte-Marie_-_Église_Notre-Dame_-_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Port-Sainte-Marie (Lot-et-Garonne, France) - Church of Our Lady - 19th-century pulpit --Benjism89 06:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The object is unnaturally distorted --Екатерина Борисова 01:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Technical quality is good, but the distortion is bad. Let's hear what others have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Закат_церковь_Покрова.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ferapontov Monastery (by Dj wirus-x) --FBilula 12:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 12:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Rather small, probably downzized. Metadata and coordinates missing, red category. --Milseburg 16:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Size is acceptable. Categorization could be better ("Sunsets of Russia" is crowded) but is still ok (I don't see any red category). From the description and heritage number we know the exact location of the subject and also the rough camera position. --Plozessor 07:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. Images of his kind ("easy to take") should have at least 6 MPixels. --Smial 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would prefer branches on the right to be cut out of the frame. --Горбунова М.С. 21:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. --Kallerna 07:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Kuyavian-Pomeranian_Voivodship_Office_in_Bydgoszcz_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship Office in Bydgoszcz, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship, Poland. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 12:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 12:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right part of building is unnaturally distorted. --Екатерина Борисова 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of distortion. Easy to fix though. --Plozessor 07:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment How to? Verticals are all vertical, straight horizontal lines are straight, no visible barrel or pincushion distortion. This is not worse than other images with strong perspective correction aka compulsive verticalisation. --Smial 17:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment By skewing the upper right corner downward (or the upper left corner upward). As you said, verticals are fine, it's the difference in height between left and right side that gives the distorted look. --Plozessor 05:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment And as you're referring to 'other images with strong perspective correction', yes, sometimes we accept such, but usually it affects high towers (like a very high church tower of an otherwise not-so-high church). But here it's just a three-story house. --Plozessor 05:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just doesn't look good with how how acute that angle is compared to the part of the builduing that is in shadows. No idea how to fix it though. --Горбунова М.С. 21:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:PlacaPasajeUmbrella-Gualeguaychu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque in Umbrella Passage, Gualeguaychú, Argentina --Ezarate 20:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Oversharpened, tilted, has CA's on letters. Sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Thanks for review it, I reprocessed it --Ezarate 21:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks much better, thank you! I removed my opposing vote. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Plozessor 09:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Porsche_911_Carrera_3.0,_Rallye_Monte_Carlo_Historique_2025,_Bad_Homburg_(P1032881).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1976 Porsche 911 Carrera 3.0 at the technical inspection for Rallye Monte Carlo Historique 2025 in Bad Homburg --MB-one 20:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 21:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. No composition. --Smial 23:01, 12 February 2025
  • Maybe crop it sso space on the right from the car would be not wider than that on the left, I like the photo though. --Горбунова М.С. 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support The people behind the car aren't ideal, but we have seen worse compositions. Still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Défilé motorisé - automitrailleuse AM M8 (Colmar).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorized troops during the military parade of the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For images like these, I think the vehicle categorization is necessary for QI.--Peulle 12:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I added a category according to the file name of an image of the tank on the web [1]. This tank looks very similar to other images of M8 Greyhound tanks, but I am certainly not an expert for WW2 military vehicles. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
OK now.--Peulle 08:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Défilé motorisé - M5 Halftrack (Colmar).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorized troops during the military parade of the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 07:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. Also, for images like these, I think the vehicle categorization is necessary for QI.--Peulle 12:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Vehicle categorization ok. Gzen92 13:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I will add that the image can still be useful as a thumbnail in articles etc., but the blur (camera shake?) is unfixable and makes it not a QI in my opinion.--Peulle 13:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Moving vehicle. Gzen92 07:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Great_egret_in_flight_(70040).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great egret in flight in the Edwin B. Forsythe preserve --Rhododendrites 02:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I think that the bird is overexposed and lack details. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good from my point of view. --Plozessor 05:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 09:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe a little overexposed at the neck hump, but overall a good photo. --Горбунова М.С. 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Town_hall_of_Villiers-le-Sec_Nievre_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall of Villiers-le-Sec, Nievre, France. --Tournasol7 07:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The vertical lines are vertical, but the house appears unnaturally distorted. -- Spurzem 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good technical quality, but bad distortion. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Genesis_G90_(RS4)_DSC_7460.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Genesis G90 (RS4) in Echterdingen --Alexander-93 11:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 13:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please take no offense. But the lighting of the subject is extremely bad. I also find the garbage cans in the background annoying. In my opinion, a photo like this cannot be considered a quality image. -- Spurzem 18:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • In seems that this one must go to discussion page --Екатерина Борисова 19:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --Plozessor 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Spurzem, sorry, but on your page the first photo is QI while not in a good lighting and much worse shadows that this image, it's not to say it's good or bad, but why that photo is enough for QI and this one isn't? Shot in situ garbage cans couldn't be taken away from the frame. --Горбунова М.С. 20:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment Inappropriate comparison. Lothar's photo from 2007 was not suggested as a QI candidate by himself, but by another user in February 2008 and accepted by a third. --Smial 14:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment It doesn't matter who accepted or nominated it, it is a QI, so it can be used as a comparison of what is acceptible for QI, it's a good photo with only problem being shadows, here shadows are not underexposed anywhere but a small area near the hind wheel. --Горбунова М.С. 20:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Горбунова М.С.: Apparently you see the photo of the Genesis G90 very differently than the others. Best regards -- Spurzem 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I would not mind the garbage cans. However, the main subject shows very uneven lighting, looking gray even though it is probably white, and there is quite disturbing bright light on some front parts of the car. Spurzem's photo may have a rather dark background, but the main subject (i.e. the car) looks completely o.k. Everyone is entitled to their opinions here, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 13:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Tomba_di_San_Giovanni_Bosco.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tomba di San Giovanni Bosco --TorinoDoc 12:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quite dark, should probably increase the shadows and midtones a bit. --Plozessor 05:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Ok now? Thank you --TorinoDoc 20:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really dark. --Sebring12Hrs 13:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
     Support Finaly I agree. Very sharp and not so dark, we can see the details and the lighting condition aren't easy in those buildings. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Others? Thank you--TorinoDoc 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Plozessor 05:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - it can be very dark inside churches but that should not prevent attempting to take good quality photos in such often photographically interesting environments (even if we don't happen to have a camera stand with us)! --Scotch Mist 11:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:A_frozen_tree.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Poplar in frost, Duderhof, Saint Peterburg, Russia --Горбунова М.С. 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 16:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add the proper location and categories. There's nothing at all right now. --Екатерина Борисова 01:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "A tree" of unknown genus at an unknown location and not a single category. --Plozessor 05:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Kallerna 07:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of lack of location and categorization. A nice photo, though. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No location, city ? region ? couintry ? geoloc ? --Sebring12Hrs 12:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    Location added. I canceled my vote. --Sebring12Hrs 13:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now it has categories of country and region (thanks to Юрий Д.К.), but it still needs more precise location and species. -- Екатерина Борисова 05:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There was an added category of poplar, I can't add a species, it is a hybrid that can't be ided, as 99% of Populus hybrids sadly are, they still are valuable and botanists are very interested in them and their genetics. I added a better location, it wasn't there by my mistake. --Горбунова М.С. 11:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable now. The genus should be sufficient. I also removed my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Location is still not very specific. Removed my opposing vote, but will not support unless we get more specific location. --Plozessor 05:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry, but what else do you want as a location? I added a specific category, a train station, and here added its name, it is a small place, how a district of a town within a city is not specific enough? I can say that it's on the shores of Duderhof lake, not just in Duderhof, but if you just look at the map you see it's not any more specific. I'm totally perplexed.
  • "How a district of a town within a city is not specific enough" Actually yes, that is my opinion. For a quality image we might want to have a more specific location, ideally coordinates or an address. --Plozessor 12:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • 59.7102128953, 30.1151612028 I have no idea how to use those here --Горбунова М.С. 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • This can be done with a template, {{Location|59.7102128953|30.1151612028}}. I added this template to your file. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect! --Plozessor 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Petro Stelte 15:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Petro Stelte 16:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC) (UTC)

File:At_the_British_Museum_2024_030.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pair of door panels (Yoruba), British Museum --Mike Peel 12:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very noisy in the shades, unfortunately. Not sure it's fixable as NR might reduce LoD. --Benjism89 21:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Really borderline but I think it's acceptable, as Smial would say, for an A4 print. --Benjism89 19:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't know how it can be QI. The quality is very low. --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excessive noise reduction, post-processing problems.--Peulle 11:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In principle, the quality would be sufficient, but not with the current version of this photo, as the denoising has destroyed too many details and left artifacts. Noise reduction algorithms work best on uncompressed file formats and before any distortions or perspective corrections have been applied. --Smial 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 06 Feb → Fri 14 Feb
  • Fri 07 Feb → Sat 15 Feb
  • Sat 08 Feb → Sun 16 Feb
  • Sun 09 Feb → Mon 17 Feb
  • Mon 10 Feb → Tue 18 Feb
  • Tue 11 Feb → Wed 19 Feb
  • Wed 12 Feb → Thu 20 Feb
  • Thu 13 Feb → Fri 21 Feb
  • Fri 14 Feb → Sat 22 Feb