Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from QIC)
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 May 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 May 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 May 23 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]] 10:29, 23 May 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).


May 23, 2024[edit]

May 22, 2024[edit]

May 21, 2024[edit]

May 20, 2024[edit]

May 19, 2024[edit]

May 18, 2024[edit]

May 17, 2024[edit]

May 16, 2024[edit]

May 15, 2024[edit]

May 14, 2024[edit]

May 13, 2024[edit]

May 12, 2024[edit]

May 11, 2024[edit]

May 10, 2024[edit]

May 9, 2024[edit]

May 8, 2024[edit]

May 7, 2024[edit]

May 6, 2024[edit]

May 5, 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:Lusenberg_Josef_Moroder_Addolorata_detail.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of Sorrows, woodcarved polychromed statue in parish church of Urtijëi. Sculptor Josef Moroder-Lusenberg --Moroder 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp (motion blur due to low shutter speed), noisy. --Mandula 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera has a electronic stabilizer --Moroder 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "electronic stabilizer" might not be enough for 1/4 second exposure time. But IMO the issue with this picture is not motion blur but rather lack of DOF. In any case, at full resolution it's noisy, but even at lower resolution only the face is sharp while other parts are blurry. --Plozessor 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    • The concept of this series of photos was to focus on the face of the statues since there are already good pictures of the whole statue.--Moroder 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't understand why you so often waste the possibilities offered by your camera by using very high ISO settings instead of using a tripod for such and similar motifs. This applies to the entire series of images presented. Of course, the very high image resolution still allows the photos to be used by shrinking them down to six or eight Mpixels. However, this cannot compensate for the loss of possible contrast range. --Smial 09:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Ps: Lighting and composition are all nice. A pity.
  • A tripod is not permitted in most churches and museums. That’s the reason why I moved from the X1C to the X2C 100C --Moroder 10:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of Schiller high school in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB? Very green. --ArildV 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV --Plozessor 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Héro_et_Léandre_(Paul_Gasq).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hero and Leander, or The Kiss --Romainbehar 05:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Comment Appears slightly out of focus (also red pixel at heart of embrace). --Scotch Mist 09:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    New version: improved sharpness, removed red pixel, downsized --Romainbehar 22:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dresden_Hauptbahnhof.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dresden Hauptbahnhof --Perituss 18:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Disturbing fence --Moroder 09:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    IMHO, the fence isn't really an issue for QI, as the main subject is still quite obvious, but apparently there is a slight CCW tilt. --C messier 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Heralds at the south-east side of the town hall in Bremen --JoachimKohler-HB 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Good quality, but right side is leaning in. --Tournasol7 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Croome_Court_2016_177.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Druid, Croome Park --Mike Peel 07:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice photo, but can you, please, remove magenta fringing on hand, head and staff? --LexKurochkin 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, CA tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Half done Better, but not yet QA. The fringing is still visible, looks disturbing on his right arm. --LexKurochkin 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I've had another go, how's that? Thanks. Mike Peel 09:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but the purple fringing is too strong yet --LexKurochkin 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure you're looking at the latest version (purged cache)? I've checked again, I can't see any purple now... Marking as discuss, hope that's OK. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support Today I have checked it again and see no fringing. Sorry, looks like it was my browser cash or something like that. --LexKurochkin 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me - not seeing purple fringing! --Scotch Mist 09:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK for me also --Jakubhal 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sibiu_-_Turnul_Archebuzierilor_(2023)_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Turnul Archebuzierilor Tower, Sibiu --Chainwit. 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Both sides leaning in a bit. --C messier 20:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    :I believe that's the structural leaning? If I adjust those leaning the background buildings would be over-skewed. --Chainwit. 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    The background buildings are leaning in a bit. --C messier 20:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Somewhat blurring noise reduction, but perspective of reworked version is ok. --Smial 11:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For the new version (didn't notice there was a new one). --C messier 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Łódź Palace Tower Garden View --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems a bit underexpoded, especially the western side of the tower. Pleas discuss about QI. -- Spurzem 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, also not ideal composition and perspective. --Plozessor 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Plozessor: Am not sure that the image is significantly underexposed, but with regard to the composition and perspective does this appear "fixable" without removing interesting detail? --Scotch Mist 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shadows and exposure leves are OK to me. It needs PC, though. Nacaru 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done @Nacaru: Perspective adjusted! --Scotch Mist 09:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
      •  Support. Nacaru 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Just over 6 MPixels is a bit low for a landscape shot of this type these days, I find little remnants of CA and the sharpness could be a bit better. But it's enough for a decent A4-size print, and I really have nothing to complain about in terms of colour, lighting and composition. --Smial 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed IMO - halo effect around the farthest mountain. Seems like a mask was added with negative dehaze or similar to give the impression of distance. BigDom 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The very special lighting makes the photo appear blurrier than it is. Yes, you can definitely see weaknesses, especially on the bird's head. Overall, however, I think it's enough for a usable A4-size printout. --Smial 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Nagcha_of_Feija_National_Park.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nagcha of Feija National Park picture Captured from Aïn Techia while sunset. By User:Bill.pix --TOUMOU 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white balance seems off. Colors during sunset are usually very warm; here, everything is greenish. --Jakubhal 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color balance is clearly off (the sky doesn't look green during sunset). Also, there's practically no detail, basically each mountain is just a green color gradient (but that's clearly a minor issue compared to the color). --Plozessor 09:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the color is an acceptable artistic choice. It's a beautiful image and well framed. --Valereee 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • QI is not about art. A picture of sunset that was originally yellow and on the picture is green may be an "artistic" work but IMO not a QI in our sense. --Plozessor 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnatural WB, looks also downsized regarding the camera used. --Milseburg (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC))

File:Close_wing_pudding_position_of_Ochlodes_brahma_(Moore,_1878)_-_Grey-branded_Darter_IMG_0531.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing pudding position of Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878) - Grey-branded Darter. By User:Thamblyok --Atudu 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, sorry, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 12:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support I disagree, the focus plan is well chosen but if you wan all the animal focused, you need to use focus stacking techniques. --Remontees 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Majority of the insect is OOF, and the sharp parts seem random. --Plozessor 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For subjects that are difficult to photograph, we allow that images only need to have at least two Mpixels, which is already very little for a decent printout in A4 size. This one has over 14 Mpixels and is good enough at a normal viewing distance. I also notice positively that there are no oversharpening or denoising artifacts. Yes, a little more depth of field would have been better to be able to see a few more details around the eyes. --Smial 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult to photograph. --Valereee 13:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting and too dark shadows. Thats no QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney at sunset --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zinnmann 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight tilted. I'm not convinced by the sharpness and the presentation of the sun. Looks oversaturated. --Milseburg 15:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. BigDom 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, while I think the level of detail is borderline high enough, I think it needs better composition. Bottom right side touches the edge while bottom left doesn't, top-left side shows the corner while top-right doesn't. Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Large image of small carvings, sharp enough. --Tagooty 03:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty 03:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 15 May → Thu 23 May
  • Thu 16 May → Fri 24 May
  • Fri 17 May → Sat 25 May
  • Sat 18 May → Sun 26 May
  • Sun 19 May → Mon 27 May
  • Mon 20 May → Tue 28 May
  • Tue 21 May → Wed 29 May
  • Wed 22 May → Thu 30 May
  • Thu 23 May → Fri 31 May