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]
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. (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 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 January 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 January 15 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]] 17:47, 15 January 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


January 15, 2024[edit]

January 14, 2024[edit]

January 13, 2024[edit]

January 12, 2024[edit]

January 11, 2024[edit]

January 10, 2024[edit]

January 9, 2024[edit]

January 8, 2024[edit]

January 7, 2024[edit]

January 6, 2024[edit]

January 5, 2024[edit]

January 4, 2024[edit]

January 3, 2024[edit]

January 2, 2024[edit]

December 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:Risstal_03_–_Richtung_Almdorf_Eng.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rißtal (valley of the river Riss) in Tyrol, Austria. --Cayambe 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue hue doesn't look natural. --Draceane 10:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose Indeed the sky is a bit purple, should be easy to fix in raw conversion. --Plozessor 05:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Blue hue reduced. Better now?--Cayambe 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cayambe: Unfortunately not, now it's really bad. You somehow reduced the saturation of the mountains and sky, but also of a part of the trees. Now the trees below the mountain are green at the bottom and grey at the top. You should take the original version and change purple to blue. In Photoshop you'd do that with selective color adjustment, select purple tones and adjust the tone to be more blue and less purple. --Plozessor 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Volgograd_Sudoverf_Railway_Station_2023-07-16_6467.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sudoverf railway station --Mike1979 Russia 07:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose sky looks off --Bijay Chaurasia 17:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
What problem with the sky? --Mike1979 Russia 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The sky is purple. Probably fixable though --MB-one 13:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reset to "/Decline" because of the opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Tryed to fix the color of the sky. --Mike1979 Russia 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sending this to CR to end the reversions to "/Nomination" and because the author edited the image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 05:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good now --MB-one 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to go. --Aristeas 09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE8896).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pilatus PC-21 on static display at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Sky is blown, and perspective needs correcting, maybe fixable? --Mike Peel 19:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Doesn't seem fixable, clouds seem OK to me when focusing on the plane. --多多123 22:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moving this to discuss, I think the perspective at least needs fixing. --Mike Peel 20:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds are overexposed. Tournasol7 05:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Clouds are ok (you can't demand full details in the brightest parts of clouds when the image focuses on an object on the ground). I can't see any issue with verticals (the buildings and tents in the background are perfectly aligned; the mobile fence might stand crooked. --Plozessor 05:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clouds are indeed overexposed. Yann 23:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt clouds, cluttered surroundings. --Smial 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Yann 23:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Mary_cathedral_in_Vitoria-Gasteiz_(5).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Mary cathedral in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain. --Tournasol7 05:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    This seems to have an unnatural blue tint; also the distortion is annoying, should probably compress at least the upper part a bit. --Plozessor 05:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    The blue tint is natural for this time of day (blue hour) and there is no distortion for me here. --Tournasol7 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the blue tint is minor and can be tolerated, but the distortion in the upper part is IMO unacceptable. The upper part of the tower is too much stretched vertically due to the way you applied perspective correction. Gradual compression (most on the top and none at the bottom) would fix this. I'd like to hear other's opinions, so would appreciate if you'd move it to discussion. --Plozessor 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, discuss please. Tournasol7 19:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The tower is too distorted. -- Spurzem 10:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I consider the perspective correction to be geometrically correct. I also think that, as is so often the case with wide-angle photographs that have also been digitally corrected, it looks exaggerated and unnatural. However, we have a problem with "double standards", because in recent years countless similarly strongly verticalised images have not only been tolerated, but actually demanded by many here on QIC. The question arises as to whether forcibly verticalised photographs can become QI at all if they appear all too unnatural. And: Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not? --Smial 09:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, because this picture is borderline, but in the past many even worse verticalised photos have been praised. Colours are fine. --Smial 09:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Blumensand_Silo_Kruse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg, Blumensand, Silo P. Kruse --KaiBorgeest 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, maybe too strong jpg compression. Blown out sky. Slightly tilted. --Kadellar 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:ADAC,_IAA_Summit_2023,_Munich_(P1120209).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Polestar 3 on display at ADAC booth, IAA Summit 2023 in Munich --MB-one 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, this would be a great photo but that half head really kills it IMHO. --Plozessor 05:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
     Support I don't think so, I didn't even see it when I examined the image yesterday, so I vote to promote. --多多123 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The man has gone now. His half head over the roof of the car was very disturbing indeed. -- Spurzem 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Spurzem: Yeah, but the traces of your edits can be seen - there is a rectangle with a slightly different color than then surroundings, and part of the car's roof is missing. Thus still no QI for me, sorry. --Plozessor 17:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Plozessor: Of course we can criticize at the highest level. But what errors you see are probably more of a guess than reality because you know what it looked like before.  Support For me the picture is good now. -- Spurzem 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Spurzem: Let me quote you: Why am I biased when I see clear defects in a photo? Can pictures only be praised here? Here's an overcontrasted excerpt of the new version, that shows the defects I'm referring to: Click. The original version had an annoying head in the background but no technical defect. Your edit has technical defects from incorrect retouching. Would be great if correctly retouched though. --Plozessor 11:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: It is astonishing how you believe to have discovered a serious error in the execution of what you consider to be a completely unsuccessful retouching, but on the other hand, you recently rated a partially blue-tinged photo of an altar as a quality image. Our ideas about good images are obviously very different. -- Spurzem 12:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: We might have different ideas or probably different monitors or different eyes, that's what the CR process is for. --Plozessor 13:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it appropriate that User:Spurzem voted for a photo version that he retouched? Or should this vote be removed? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Please tell me the law that prohibits collegiality. -- Spurzem 22:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I just gave you an answer on my German Wikipedia talk page. Briefly, you uploaded a version of the photo that you retouched and then voted for this retouched version. In my opinion, retouching a photo makes you a coauthor of the retouched version and you should not be allowed to vote for it, just like the original author. But please correct me if I am wrong. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Can you please tell me where my supposedly serious error in image editing was, which you have now corrected in a masterly manner? It would also be interesting to know what gives you the right to delete my review, even though I basically don't care anymore. -- Spurzem 14:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: See the link I already posted yesterday:
    https://i.ibb.co/HpKdyMY/cardetail.jpg
    You covered the head with a square that had a slightly different tone than the surroundings, resulting in sharp edges ('your' rectangle was visible). Depending on the monitor settings, one might not see the difference; on my monitor it was really annoying. --Plozessor 14:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered surroundings. And because the sharpening artefacts present in the original were not taken into account, the car now also has a dent in the roof. --Smial 09:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: I also saw the apparent dent; but it is probably part of the body shape. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: On Spurzem's side here; the original picture shows quite clearly that the dent is real, it's not a photographic/retouching flaw. Surroundings are not optimal, but they hardly are for these car pictures; at least there are no people right behind the car (anymore). --Plozessor 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Well, the retouching can still be seen, especially since you have also removed the noise that is present in the surroundings and left a hard edge. One can think it's great, but in view of the overall impression of this photo, I take the liberty of sticking to my opposing vote. --Smial 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_63.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of St Fabian and Sebastian, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 17:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the crucifixion scene at the top and the top panel on the right are too bright and the colors are therefore unnatural. I know from experience how difficult it is sometimes to photograph such painting, but in my opinion difficulties are not a criterion for a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support O.K. for me.--Ermell 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good rework. --Smial 15:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't imagine that the colors of the middle panel above and the top panel on the right are anywhere close to reality. But maybe it's because of my eyes that I can't share the general enthusiasm for the photo. -- Spurzem 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco: @Spurzem: Indeed this seems to have a bit more yellow in reality; there's a professional picture here. --Plozessor 13:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco: @Spurzem: @Plozessor: In your example, the tablecloth on the altar has a visible yellow tint. Normally they are pure white. With mixed lighting, you often have to decide in favour of one variant. In the professional picture, the decision was apparently made to reduce the blue cast in the areas with daylight. This makes everything else slightly yellowish. Poco has decided to achieve a colour balance that is as neutral as possible. This is definitely not a quality defect. --Smial 08:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: That's why I support this photo, see my comment to Spurzem below. --Plozessor (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. Thanks to Smial for his comment on the white balance and the comparison of the photos! --Aristeas 10:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: I do not think like you. The lower part of the retable shows colors similar to those that can be seen in reality under artificial light. The upper part, especially the crucifixion scene, has an unsightly blue cast. -- Spurzem 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I think we don't have clear guidelines for "correct" colors under non-white light. Had one picture of a wayside shrine that looks yellow in reality because it's in a dark niche and most of the light that reaches it is reflected by the yellow walls, but that was not accepted as a QI. Only when I changed the white balance, so that the picture showed the object as it would appear under white light, it was accepted. We might have a similar case here - should the picture resemble the yellowish light in the church, or should it show the object as it would look under white light? --Plozessor 13:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment The pictures in the virtual tour linked by Plozessor have exactly the same problems in several different views, only, as already mentioned, the professional photographers there have opted for a more yellowish colour balance, which is just "wrong" in a different way. There, too, parts that receive light from the windows are slightly bluish in colour compared to the rest. That's just the way it is with mixed light. --Smial 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Οδός_Κυρρήστου_16_και_Ερεχθέως,_Πλάκα_3829.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The neoclassic house in Plaka, Athens. --C messier 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose a bit noisy. Otherwise good. --MB-one 21:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A bit noisy and, due short distance plus extreme PC, looking very unnatural. Might look better when compressing it vertically a bit. (Btw, don't know why it was moved to Discussions as I don't see an contradicting votes.) --Plozessor 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Because MB-one doesn't agree with me.... there's no point in waiting his red vote. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. The perspective correction is a bit unnaturally. But I know QIs which are less succeeded. -- Spurzem 17:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. Tournasol7 16:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tournasol7 16:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Johannaweg_Park_und_Pyramidenkogel_25122023_0363.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Park on Johannaweg with Pyramid Ballon in the background, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not really convince with the clouds over the Pyramid Ballon. They are looking burned. Sorry again. --Milseburg 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I uploaded an improved version. —- Johann Jaritz 08:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good enough to me --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. --Plozessor 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose that still looks unnatural and overprocessed -- Smial 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sky seems to have burned out. Christian Ferrer 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Sun 07 Jan → Mon 15 Jan
  • Mon 08 Jan → Tue 16 Jan
  • Tue 09 Jan → Wed 17 Jan
  • Wed 10 Jan → Thu 18 Jan
  • Thu 11 Jan → Fri 19 Jan
  • Fri 12 Jan → Sat 20 Jan
  • Sat 13 Jan → Sun 21 Jan
  • Sun 14 Jan → Mon 22 Jan
  • Mon 15 Jan → Tue 23 Jan