Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 April 2024.
  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 April 2024.
  • 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 April 10 2024 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]] 08:12, 10 April 2024 (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


April 10, 2024[edit]

April 9, 2024[edit]

April 8, 2024[edit]

April 7, 2024[edit]

April 6, 2024[edit]

April 5, 2024[edit]

April 4, 2024[edit]

April 3, 2024[edit]

April 2, 2024[edit]

April 1, 2024[edit]

March 31, 2024[edit]

March 30, 2024[edit]

March 29, 2024[edit]

March 27, 2024[edit]

March 26, 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:20210715_Ναός_Αγίας_Παρασκευής,_Απείρανθος_7413.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Panterpe_insignis_in_Costa_Rica_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fiery-throated hummingbird (Panterpe insignis), Costa Rica --Bgag 00:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose quite blurred --Charlesjsharp 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_resting_of_Cheritra_freja_(Fabricius,_1793)_-_Common_Imperial_WLB_MG_3089.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing resting of Cheritra freja (Fabricius, 1793) - Common ImperialThis image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly.I, --SVKMBFLY 13:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a bit noisy --Nikride 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should be good enough, but please do not forget the species category! Sending this to CR (please do not revert to "Nomination"!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Makalali_Game_Reserve_(ZA),_Eule_--_2024_--_1305.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Owl at night in Makalali Game Reserve (Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve), Maruleng, Limpopo, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colours need attention --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Tiguan_III_IMG_8394.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Tiguan III in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 08:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, let's discuss. --Mike Peel 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong with this picture. --Plozessor 05:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. The upper part of the car seems a bit too bright, and the gray, nearly non-transparent windows are unsightly. I would not have presented this photo for recognition as a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Also low DOF. --Smial 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Cyclingworld_Cyclocross_Race_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170931).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cyclingworld Cyclocross Race 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Mostly blurred, except the orange cyclist. Might work if cropped more to that part? --Mike Peel 06:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mike Peel. --Sebring12Hrs 12:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Cropped. --MB-one 20:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think this photo is such a bad example of panning. --Smial 16:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

File:RioGualeguaychu-mar2024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Gualeguaychu River, Gualeguaychu, Argentina --Ezarate 14:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, sorry --Nikride 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I disagree Ezarate 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Why overprocessed? I see no disturbing artifacts. --Smial 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The trees look strange. And tilted --Nikride 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Ruta29-GralBelgrano-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Provincial Route 29 in General Belgrano, Buenos Aires province, Argentina --Ezarate 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 01:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, sorry --Nikride 18:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nikride, strange combination of noise and blur and halos. --Plozessor 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment fixed overprocessing Ezarate 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looking better but still weird to me, especially the trees in background. --Plozessor 06:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Ruta29-GralBelgranoArg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of provincial route 29 in General Belgrano, provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted --Nikride 18:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted indeed. --Plozessor 05:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment tilted fixed Ezarate 21:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Поминик_(Вікторівка)._Центр_села.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Center of Pomynyk village --Nikride 07:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Strong CA (most of your image have it), bad left crop and too much room at the bottom --Poco a poco 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Nikride 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, the CA has been reduced but the silhouttes of the trees don't look yet good. --Poco a poco 06:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
How to understand this? --Nikride 07:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Cannot explain, the CA was maybe so strong that even after removing it there are strong halos --Poco a poco 10:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As the reaction was revenge votes and personal attacks instead of improving the image, I have to decline --Poco a poco 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a 100% vote out of revenge, and not what I did. --Nikride 11:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Stop playing. It's easy, if you really believe this image is QI, move it to CR so that you get more feedback, that's the way QI works. --Poco a poco 19:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
pixel-peeping --Nikride 19:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I usually have been generous with the slight CA in most of Nikride's pictures, but this one has clearly too much of it. Seems like it was taken with a substandard lens, which I guess can only be fixed during RAW conversion but not afterwards. --Plozessor 05:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Johannes-Brahms-Promenade_Lake's_morsche_Brückenträme_28032024_0962.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rotten wooden beams at the lido of My Lake`s on Johannes Brahms Promenade, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but lack of DOF (there's nothing sharp but the very front of the woden beams). Otherwise would be a really nice composition. --Plozessor 03:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with DOF. Good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Convento_de_los_Jacobinos,_Toulouse,_Francia,_2023-01-07,_DD_28.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Convento de los Jacobinos, Toulouse, Francia, 2023-01-07 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose CA was so strong that even after removing it there are strong halos and burnt sky --Nikride 19:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    Bullshit. Revenge botvote using the same criticism in the picture than the one I reviewed. If you don't accept criticisms here, please, refrain from asking for feedback to your images in this page. --Poco a poco 20:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Revenge bot - lol! Can bots take photos? No revenge. Do you just think that only you have the right to find fault with other photos, but not with yours? --Nikride 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • You know I was talking about a revenge vote, I corrected it. Look, I have been half a life contributing in this page, I'm approaching 20,000 QIs and my pictures are being declined from time to time. I have no problem with that as long as it's fair. You, like I have been doing, have to learn to come along with declines and criticisms and mine is fair. Just ask for a third opinion. Did you realize that I promoted a bunch of your pictures, you didn't complain then. Most of your pictures are borderline, you will not get better if you believe that declines and criticism are personal attacks. You should rather take it as a stimulus to get better instead of wasting your time and the time others. I really have nothing else to add here. Poco a poco 11:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I promoted a bunch of your pictures too --Nikride 10:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly that photos of newcomers are checked more carefully than those who have been here for many years or are admins? --Nikride 15:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any real problem even in full resolution. Without some thorough pixel-peeping the picture has good quality --Jakubhal 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't see any CA, but I don't like the strong distortion resulting from 'fixing verticals' in a picture taken from short distance.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Claustro_de_San_Gregorio_Armeno,_Nápoles,_Italia,_2023-03-25,_DD_98.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Claustro de San Gregorio Armeno, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the upper right corner, near the window --Nikride 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • There is no CA here, revenge vote, nonsense review. Will still move to CR. --Poco a poco 20:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Please calm down. Purple CA near the window in the upper right corner where there is a cross on the balcony --Nikride 21:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I cannot see any trace of CA at 100%, if I have to look at 300% this is definitely a case of pixel peeping, have you realised the size of the file. You should take that criticism back and so close this matter. It would be funny that you see here CA when most of your images have visible CA. --Poco a poco 08:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Just because you don't see CA (or don't want to see it) doesn't mean they don't exist. This is 100% clearly visible. Nothing funny. Yes, my photos have CA and now I’m forbidden from noticing them on others? --Nikride 10:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • No, that's not the point as long as it is fair and you don't pixel peep, like here. Revenge is never a good companion when it comes to review. --Poco a poco 11:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that there was no pixel peep here? --Nikride 11:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, unable to spot any CA. --Plozessor 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, and yes I can see an itsy bitsy tiney hint of purple on the female statues head. But if I'd judged other parts this hard, I'd decline b/c of lacking sharpness.--Tobias ToMar Maier 23:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support By far good enough for an A4-size print, or even larger. --Smial 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Füttersee_St._Laurentius_Tür-20230906-RM-160753.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Door of the Protestant Church of St Laurentius in Füttersee --Ermell 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 05:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA --Nikride 11:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA means chromatic aberration, there is no such thing on this picture. Poco a poco 07:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Do you think I'm a fool and don't know what CA is!? Violet CAs are clearly visible at the bottom of the doors and at the top at the border of the shadows. --Nikride 10:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I only think, that you are embarrassing yourself opposing images with a resolution of 43 MPx where you can hardly see CA and at the same time to try to push your images with less than 10 MPx and visible CA at regular monitor size. I hope that from now one you are not nominating such images anymore. Poco a poco 08:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with you, but I'm tired of proving something to you. And please, I will do what I consider necessary --Nikride 10:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree on the CA thing. That is a bit too much.--Tobias ToMar Maier 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Indeed there is 4 pixels wide purple CA at the bottom of the door. Not too disturbing next to the brown door, but would be better (and should not be hard) to fix. --Plozessor 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image. -- Spurzem 15:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Nikride: @Tobias ToMar Maier: @Plozessor: Fixed that problem. Have another look.--Ermell 13:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now! --Plozessor 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Nikride (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Knysna_(ZA),_Knysna_River,_Ufer_--_2024_--_2427.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Banks of the Knysna River, Knysna, Western Cape, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the picture is blurred --Bgag 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is blurred. Charlesjsharp 07:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support some very small remains of CA, and somewhat soft, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 12:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Krokodil_--_2024_--_0498.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crocodile in the Sabie River in Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head of the crocodile is blurred. --Bgag 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, blurred. Charlesjsharp 07:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Also somewhat overexposed. --Smial 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:D-6-78-124-74_Wohnhaus,_Julius-Echter-Ring_17_(Donnersdorf).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 18th century house in Traustadt --Plozessor 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose Unclean pp should be fixed. --Ermell 06:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  • The front wheel of the left car and the bits of wall above the bushes. --Ermell 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: That is a brand new car model with five whee... ;) Oops! Must have been asleep when doing this! Thx for noticing, what about new version? --Plozessor 06:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The number plates need not and should not be made unrecognisable. This has already been discussed extensively.--Ermell 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Smial:  Question How exactly? Do you think it's overcontrasted? --Plozessor 04:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Halo around the chimney, dark "halos" on some clouds, not on others, heavy cloning artefacts on the left edge of the image, smeared car number plates. --Smial 23:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Ok, thx for clarification. --Plozessor 04:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Overprocessed. Contours between the roof and the sky are strange. You don'thave a RAW file ? --Sebring12Hrs 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Unfortunately no, I lost that one. --Plozessor 04:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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