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 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 August 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 August 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 August 09 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]] 02:59, 9 August 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
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).


August 9, 2024

[edit]

August 8, 2024

[edit]

August 7, 2024

[edit]

August 6, 2024

[edit]

August 5, 2024

[edit]

August 4, 2024

[edit]

August 3, 2024

[edit]

August 2, 2024

[edit]

August 1, 2024

[edit]

July 31, 2024

[edit]

July 30, 2024

[edit]

July 29, 2024

[edit]

July 28, 2024

[edit]

July 27, 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:Roses_in_Bauman_Garden_IMG_7820_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roses in Bauman Garden --Sunny365days 06:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose All roses are beautiful but not sharp exept one at bottom right. Also categories of location should be added. --Екатерина Борисова 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added "Bauman Garden" Category. --Drow male 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moving this to CR assuming that you wish to challenge the vote. Please do not revert to "Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Eke_kyrka_July_2024_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eke Church. --ArildV 07:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 07:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is Dust spots to be removed. Additionally it might be slightly underexposed at the highlights. --Augustgeyler 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you for reviews. New version uploaded.--ArildV 06:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now. --Augustgeyler 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Navy_Moskva_and_Ivanovets_2012_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Russian Navy corvette Ivanovets (954), missile cruiser Moskva (121) -- George Chernilevsky 04:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment All these photos are historical. They were taken in 2012, now almost all these ships are sunk because of the war and cannot be re-shot. The so-called "Russian warship" Moskva (121) in the background. During the shooting there was morning haze and smoke from the engines. I check the sharpness of the pictures by the image of the handrails. Regarding the size of the images, they correspond to guidlines, more than 2 Mp. This is not a downsampling, cropping only --George Chernilevsky 05:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support More than 6 MPixels and by far sharp enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Plozessor 03:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Navy_Moskva_and_Turbinist_2012_G2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Russian Navy minesweeper Turbinist (912), missile cruiser Moskva (121) -- George Chernilevsky 04:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support More than 6 MPixels and by far sharp enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Plozessor 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ivanovets_corvette_2012_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Russian corvette Ivanovets -- George Chernilevsky 04:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Plozessor 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ternopil_2012_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ukrainian corvette Ternopil' (U209) -- George Chernilevsky 04:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low resolution. Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Plozessor 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Alpine,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170998).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alpine transport bicycle at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is underexposed. Also, the handlebar of the bike is hard to see against the black background. I think that improvement is possible. Further the cut at the left is very tight. Currently the photo is not a QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Sebring12Hrs 11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Augustgeyler 05:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 03:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_308_C_Hybrid_IMG_0065.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot 308 C Hybrid in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment At full resolution the car is mostly out of focus. If you reduce the image size, it may appear sharper. --Needsmoreritalin 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Regarding to the guidelines, images should never be downscaled. --Augustgeyler 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not in focus. --August (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Kia_Seltos_IMG_0140.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kia Seltos in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment At full size the Image is soft and feels out of focus, but its very large. If you reduce the image size, you may be able to fix that. --Needsmoreritalin 15:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see your point, but reducing the resolution isn't a option if I understand it correctly - you can already view the lower resolution now. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 18:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Сары-могол_8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yurts in Sary-Mogol botanical sanctuary. Alai District, Osh Region, Kyrgyzstan. By User:Artur198686 --Красный 07:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Wrong WB. --ArildV 08:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment better but still not correct imo. Second opinion? --ArildV 07:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very hard to tell here. It might be good now. --August (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Colors seem ok. Quality is acceptable, but still wondering why an α6000 at ISO 100 can't produce a sharper picture with less noise in the sky. Probably raw conversion could be better. --Plozessor 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Панорамный_вид_на_озера..-.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sary Chelek nature reserve. Aksy District, Jalal-Abad Region, Kyrgyzstan. By User:Artur198686 --Красный 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Luda.slominska 11:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB should be fixed --Uoaei1 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality below QI standard. Sorry.--Ermell 19:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too grainy and not sharp enough. It was taken with an α6000 at ISO 100, I can't imagine that this camera can't do better. Probably it could be fixed with better raw conversion? --Plozessor 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Lille_jardin_des_plantes_colonnes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Remains of the columns of the old courthouse, in the Lille Jardin des Plantes, France --Velvet 09:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --AuHaidhausen 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the image looks over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me too. --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 03:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Huế_2024_July_-_Bao_Quoc_Temple_(Chùa_Báo_Quốc)_-_img_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Camaleón_africano_delgado_(Chamaeleo_dilepis),_parque_nacional_de_la_Bahía_Jozani_Chwaka,_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-06-02,_DD_36.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flap-necked chameleon (Chamaeleo dilepis), Jozani Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 19:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The mouth is out in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 10:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I focused on the eyes because they seemed to be more important to me, if I had focused on the mouth they eyes would be unsharp. So, not sure then what else I could have done here, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 06:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are sharp and that is fine.--Ermell 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support DOF is borderline but agree with Ermell. --Plozessor 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_69.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Qulity to me looks good, but I wonder about the ceiling: are there two withish dust spots? --J. Lunau 12:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --J. Lunau 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this image suffered from very intense perspective correction leading to unrealistic dimensions. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, in theory fixable though. --Plozessor 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me.--Ermell 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Liège_BW_2019-08-17_15-25-22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belgium, Liège, Eglise Notre-Dame-de-l'Immaculée-Conceptón --Berthold Werner 12:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --AuHaidhausen 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks unnatural because of too strong PC and also not sharp at the top --Екатерина Борисова 01:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина, too distorted. --Augustgeyler 11:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's ok for me. Although the file name could be more specific. --Tournasol7 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Екатерина: photo was taken too close to the object, so after PC it looks higly distorted. Красный 05:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Tournasol7 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Site_Security_Control_Center,_Wachstube,_Blick_nach_außen_--_2024_--_4570.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guardroom (view through the window to the entrance) in the Site Security Control Center at the Dülmen-Visbeck Special Ammunition Depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
     Info In case anyone is wondering about the blurred spots: These are stains and scratches on the glass of the window that cannot be removed. Given the age of the object, this is normal. --XRay 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I appreciate, that the defects are due to the window glass being old. But for this motif, it doesn't matter IMO. The same view could have been shot from in front of the defective window. --MB-one 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment However, this would not achieve the effect of being able to see all the way to the entrance from the guardroom. But that was very important to me for this picture. --XRay 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok with the explanation. "View from the guardroom." --Plozessor 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 07:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doesn't make it for me, sorry. A shot through the glass of a historic window would be interesting if you could see some elements of this window, such as its frame. But if the only elements you can see of this window are blurred spots, what's the point ? This picture would be the same if it had been taken through a dirty 21st-century window. Per MB-one, this should have been shot from in front of the window. --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 01 Aug → Fri 09 Aug
  • Fri 02 Aug → Sat 10 Aug
  • Sat 03 Aug → Sun 11 Aug
  • Sun 04 Aug → Mon 12 Aug
  • Mon 05 Aug → Tue 13 Aug
  • Tue 06 Aug → Wed 14 Aug
  • Wed 07 Aug → Thu 15 Aug
  • Thu 08 Aug → Fri 16 Aug
  • Fri 09 Aug → Sat 17 Aug