Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]] 14:46, 26 July 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).


July 26, 2024

[edit]

July 25, 2024

[edit]

July 24, 2024

[edit]

July 23, 2024

[edit]

July 22, 2024

[edit]

July 21, 2024

[edit]

July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 2024

[edit]

July 17, 2024

[edit]

July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 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:Stemma_della_famiglia_Colonna.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of arms of the Colonna family --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI --Poco a poco 18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Church_bell_2017_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze church bell cast in 1905 -- George Chernilevsky 05:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bell is at the next picture upright, so which shows the reality? --2015 Michael 2015 16:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @2015 Michael 2015: This picture was already promoted. Did you want to object?
  •  Support Picture is very good. No issues with one picture showing the bell in its actual position and another picture showing it straight. --Plozessor 05:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Solar_bench_in_Dendermonde_(DSCF0484).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Solar bench in Dendermonde (Belgium) --Trougnouf 10:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Interesting, but let's sweep first? --Georgfotoart 17:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That wouldn't be authentic and it's irrelevant here anyway. --Trougnouf 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, the cigarette butts are annoying --Georgfotoart 11:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Why has this been moved to Discussions without a single supporting or opposing vote? From my side  Weak oppose because of the perspective. --Plozessor 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, I overlooked --Georgfotoart 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_петуния_на_террасе_Пирогового_дворика_02.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Ok for me. The central flower is not truncated, it is a main object. Imho QI. Юрий Д.К. 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition, the inner part of the main subject is pitch black, majority of the image is out of focus. --Plozessor 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Opel_Admiral_A_V8_(1965)_Classic-Gala_2022_1X7A0150_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Opel Admiral A V8 (1965) at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2022 --Alexander-93 18:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural-looking color, overexposed, especially in the area of ​​the front side panel and hood. The information sheet in the side window is also distracting. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 05:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support not perfect but good enough. --MB-one 12:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 13:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No excerpts of already nominated QIs--Ermell 10:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 09:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_W121BII_Classic-Gala_2022_1X7A0288_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz W121BII at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2022 --Alexander-93 15:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavourable light and therefore partly overexposed, especially the area around the right headlight and the hood. The note in the windshield in front of the steering wheel is also distracting. No offence, but in my opinion this photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hood is overexposed, much more than in the other image. --Plozessor 05:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No excerpts of already nominated QIs--Ermell 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatnatym_Mudra_(34).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatanatyam Facial expressions MudraI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 14:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The image is slightly  Underexposed and lacks sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I consider everything that is awarded QI here, the photo under discussion is excellent. Please take the lighting conditions into account and you will see that the image is perfectly exposed. In addition, the sharpness is sufficient considering the 800 ISO. The image composition is also good. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and detail are borderline, but dress and hair are too dark and merging with the background. --Plozessor 05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. If I assume that these are all stage photos that were taken in the available light, then I think the criticism of image noise and lack of contrast between black hair against a black background is exaggerated. I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, the rather mediocre image sharpness cannot be overlooked. I also tried my stage photos with kit lenses in the beginning, the experience was rather sobering and the solution rather expensive. Overall, I consider the image quality to be good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatanatyam_Mudra_(21).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatanatyam Facial expressions MudraI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 14:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness. Sorry. --Alexander-93 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, artifacts and lack of detail due high ISO, hair merging with background. --Plozessor 05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is unsharp and lacks detail. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. If I assume that these are all stage photos that were taken in the available light, then I think the criticism of image noise and lack of contrast between black hair against a black background is exaggerated. I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, the rather mediocre image sharpness cannot be overlooked. I also tried my stage photos with kit lenses in the beginning, the experience was rather sobering and the solution rather expensive. Overall, I consider the image quality to be good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatanatyam_Mudra_(15).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatanatyam Facial expressions MudraI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 14:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Low detail/noisy --Poco a poco 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, artifacts and lack of detail due high ISO, hair merging with background. --Plozessor 05:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Augustgeyler 07:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. If I assume that these are all stage photos that were taken in the available light, then I think the criticism of image noise and lack of contrast between black hair against a black background is exaggerated. I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, the rather mediocre image sharpness cannot be overlooked. I also tried my stage photos with kit lenses in the beginning, the experience was rather sobering and the solution rather expensive. Overall, I consider the image quality to be good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Yellow-fronted_canary_(Crithagra_mozambica_granti)_male_Kruger.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-fronted canary (Crithagra mozambica granti) male --Charlesjsharp 07:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Красный 14:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but isn't it too small to be QI? --Екатерина Борисова 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is 2.5 MP so in theory fine, but for the low resolution it's not sharp enough. --Plozessor 05:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Class_182,_Berlin_(20190328_095118).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DBAG Class 182 in Berlin-Charlottenburg --MB-one 21:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is  Overprocessed and lost all textures and detail. --Augustgeyler 22:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Smial 13:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatnatyam_different_facial_expressions_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatnatyam different facial expressions --Suyash.dwivedi 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It clearly lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and noisy. --Plozessor 06:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Augustgeyler 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Again I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, this one is too soft even in A4-size. --Smial 14:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatnatym_Mudra_(45).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatanatyam Facial expressions Mudra --Suyash.dwivedi 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, not a QI to me, sorry, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very blurry and noisy. --Plozessor 06:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Again I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, this one is too soft even in A4-size, and has motion blur. --Smial 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:BarElPreferido-CABA-jul2024-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Notable bar El Preferido, Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 23:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Under exposure and perspective distortion. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • reprocessed, thanks!! --Ezarate 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose error due to tool --Ezarate 16:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The exposure is now "OK" but the buildings on the right are still "falling" to the right. --2015 Michael 2015 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • check now please, thanks!! --Ezarate 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It got worse. Over-corrected perspective now. Moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 08:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive distortion (leaning out on both sides). --Plozessor 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting conditions during the photo shoot were very unfavourable. The buildings and the street in the foreground are too dark, the high-rise building in the back left is relatively bright. This building also appears to be tilting to the left and the high-rise building in front to the right. -- Spurzem 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_СО_17-3268_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3145.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination СО 17-3268 Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 09:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it is slightly overexposed and therefore the sky color is undersaturated. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @2015 Michael 2015: if you disagree with a vote, please set it to "Discuss", rather than "Nomination". --MB-one 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. Warning sign Warning Vote was not signed --Augustgeyler 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oops, that was me, now signing my vote :) --Plozessor 10:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Общий_вид_на_центр_Москвы_с_Софийской_набережной.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large parts of the area are too much in shadow. That's a shame, but in my opinion the photo is not a QI. -- Spurzem 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Świdnica,_ulica_Franciszkańska,_8_lipca_2024_,_KsP.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Świdnica, kamienicaJa, właściciel praw autorskich do tego dzieła, udostępniam je na poniższej licencji --KrzysztofPoplawski 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but nothing is really sharp.Sorry --Alexander-93 11:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done i tried to fix it. pleas check it again. --KrzysztofPoplawski 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, now, too many details are lost.--Alexander-93 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Moved to CR --Augustgeyler 14:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed (sharpening the originally blurry image did not work well). --Plozessor 06:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 07:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Little_bee-eater_(Merops_pusillus_meridionalis)_Maputo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus meridionalis) --Charlesjsharp 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too small to be QI. Do you have full version to upload? --Екатерина Борисова 02:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly above threshold, IMHO acceptable given the subject. --C messier 19:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 20:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:BarBilbaoBsAs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bar Bilbao, Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment a bit too dark, too much road and sky --Georgfotoart 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • done, thanks --Ezarate 14:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is to noisy and shows intense chromatic aberration at the trees. --Augustgeyler 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, grainy, tilted, underexposed, compression artifacts, chromatic abberation - sorry. --Plozessor 05:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Almaty-2_station,_Almaty_(P1180172).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination KTZ KZ4A locomotive in Almaty-2 train station --MB-one 20:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not working IMO. The perspective lines are going to the right as well as the track with the shown locomotive. Even the woman is adding to this impression that on the right side the most important part is happening. But on exactly this side is cut of very closely. Instead we have a large "empty" part on the left. --Augustgeyler 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition works for me and technical quality is good. --Plozessor 05:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I'm not exactly happy with the crop (it's too tight for me at the lower side), but technically photo is amazing. Красный 21:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Apatani_culture.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apatani woman, Ziro Valley in Arunachal Pradesh, India. --Felino Volador 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stunning image. But it looks over sharpened. --Augustgeyler 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry image (either due noise reduction from high ISO or camera movement) that has been sharpened which didn't work out, sorry. --Plozessor 05:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Jesus_Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jesus Church --Rione Colonna 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The sky is noisy (fixable?). The filename and description would be better. --Tournasol7 16:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's leaning at left. --Sebring12Hrs 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Ok now? Thank you --Rione Colonna 08:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to perspective correction the proportions are intensely distorted (see this image in comparison). --August 21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Камни_на_озере_Урунгач.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stones in lake Urungach, Urungach natural monument, Uzbekistan. By User:Arina Pan --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but only the one rock in foreground (which makes up a very small portion of the image) is sharp. --Plozessor 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, somewhat low DOF in full size view, but by far sharp enough for an A4-size print. Colour saturation again somewhat too high, but still acceptable. --Smial 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Gniezno_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Gniezno, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 07:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks slightly  Underexposed or was there a polarization filter involved? --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment No, I don't used the polarization filter here. It was just late evening. Tournasol7 19:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under exposure due to evening capture time. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, might be easy to fix though. --Plozessor 06:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Please don't take offense if I say that we should set up a department for underexposed images. In my opinion, this photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
     Neutral Apart from the distorted spire and the roof of the nave sloping to the left, the picture is now good. -- Spurzem 20:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Augustgeyler, 2015 Michael 2015, Plozessor, Spurzem; ✓ New version ulpoaded, it's better now? --Tournasol7 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this went from very very late evening to bright day. Is there anything possible in-between? --Augustgeyler 20:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support this 2nd version is OK --2015 Michael 2015 15:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Gniezno_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Gniezno, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 07:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it might be a bit underexposed. --Augustgeyler 10:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under exposure due to evening capture time. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info moved to CR again. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Plozessor 06:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one is ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Too dark -- Spurzem 08:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)  Support O. K. now Spurzem 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 18:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed --Augustgeyler 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Augustgeyler, 2015 Michael 2015, Plozessor, Spurzem; ✓ New version ulpoaded, it's better now? --Tournasol7 19:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
     Support The 2nd version is OK. --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 21:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_ТЭ_2596_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3216.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ТЭ 2596 Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 06:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too harsh light here, partially  Overexposed --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Reduce exposition. --Mike1979 Russia 11:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It got better. But still to harsh light. Lets see what others think. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO ok. --Plozessor 06:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Lemon_Tree_hotel_in_HITEC_city.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lemon Tree hotel in HITEC city --IM3847 02:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Geo location would be nice. --XRay 04:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. Could probably be fixed by compressing it vertically. --Plozessor 06:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, @Екатерина Борисова: , @Plozessor: I hope it works now after correcting the vertical compression to replicate composition from the RAW image. IM3847 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Trier,_08-12-2023_(actm.)_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trier, view from the Petrisberg on the city of Trier. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dust is ruling the picture which is not OK for an city portrait. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's mist, and I don't think pictures of landscapes taken in mist are inherently invalid for QI. ReneeWrites 23:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: There was fog hanging over the city of Trier that day and the photo was taken from a viewpoint high above Trier.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Virgin_Mary_Queen_of_Poland_church_in_Znin_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary Queen of Poland church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not upright --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Parchau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination River landscape --Georgfotoart 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Below minimum height requirement. --C messier 21:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sorry, new and bigger --Georgfotoart 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and grainy with low detail, probably due strong JPG compression. --Plozessor 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not too bad. --Smial 09:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --C messier 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)