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 September 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 September 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 September 03 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]] 05:21, 3 September 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).


September 3, 2024

[edit]

September 2, 2024

[edit]

September 1, 2024

[edit]

August 31, 2024

[edit]

August 30, 2024

[edit]

August 29, 2024

[edit]

August 28, 2024

[edit]

August 27, 2024

[edit]

August 26, 2024

[edit]

August 25, 2024

[edit]

August 24, 2024

[edit]

August 23, 2024

[edit]

August 22, 2024

[edit]

August 20, 2024

[edit]

August 19, 2024

[edit]

August 18, 2024

[edit]

August 17, 2024

[edit]

August 11, 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:Mating_pair_of_Jamides_celeno_(Cramer,_1775)_-_Common_Cerulean_(3)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mating pair of Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775) - Common Cerulean. By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 14:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --AuHaidhausen 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened, blurry/noisy in 100 %. --Аныл Озташ 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Аныл Озташ. Overprocessed. Lots of artifacts by sharpening image noise. --Smial 10:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry photo massively sharpened (which did not work out). --Plozessor 13:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Ang_Thong_-_Chaiyo_(2024)_Wat_Sa_Ket_"King_Naresuan"_วัดสระเกษ_พระนเรศวร_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Sra Kesh, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --I.Mahesh 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose LoD --Аныл Озташ 01:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose LoD acceptable for me, but needs perspective correction. Would support if fixed. --Plozessor 13:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Ang_Thong_-_Chaiyo_(2024)_-_Wat_Chaiyo_Worawihan_วัดไชโยวรวิหาร_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Chaiyo Varavihāra, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --I.Mahesh 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose LoD --Аныл Озташ 01:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    What does that mean? --A.Savin 07:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    Level of detail, this is particularly recognisable here in the clouds, the lawn, the people and the signs/posters. --Anil Ö. (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI, I think --A.Savin 07:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Strongly processed smartphone picture, but over the bar for me. --Plozessor 13:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Mont_St_Michel_–_ramparts_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North Tower (Tour du Nord) of Mont-Saint-Michel ramparts. --Lynx1211 06:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • only sharp at the front, is there anything else possible? --Georgfotoart 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I downscaled it again and put more attention to sharpness. Looks OK now? --Lynx1211 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. it couldn't be better --Georgfotoart 20:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure what you mean with 'downscale' since it still has the same resolution as before (and downscaling is not recommended for QI anyway). But it looks good now. It is questionable whether perspective should be "fixed", but for me it is ok as it is. (Btw, it should never have gone to discussions since there was no opposing vote.) --Plozessor 13:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Volta,_Ada_East_(P1090924).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volta River Delta in East Ada, Ghana --MB-one 21:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Detai is not good here, too much denoising? --Poco a poco 07:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Tweaked the detail. Should be better now --MB-one 06:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • It's indeed better, borderline though. What you Need to fix here is the vignetting. Then I'd promote. --Poco a poco 19:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A bit grainy but ok, however, per Poco a poco the vignetting is strong and should be fixed. --Plozessor 13:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Bonaguil_et_son_village.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Bonaguil et son village. --Sebring12Hrs 00:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose PC needed -- the top is bulging out slightly. Otherwise good. --Tagooty 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry but I can't see issues with perspective, I corrected it already with ShiftN. Can we have other opinions ?. --Sebring12Hrs 08:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The right side is very slightly tilted outwards, but it's so minimal that it doesn't matter. DoF could be slightly better (the towers are not fully sharp, would have been better to use higher f-number and shorter exposure), but still the picture is IMO clearly above the bar. --Plozessor 03:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Morena_boca_blanca_(Gymnothorax_meleagris),_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-29,_DD_94.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Turkey moray (Gymnothorax meleagris), Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 06:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The eyes are in focus, but insufficient DoF for the rest. --Tagooty 03:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about this, can we please discuss about it? I also uploaded a new version --Poco a poco 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF and overall quality seem adequate for the scene. --Plozessor 03:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Казахстан,_Караойский_заказник,_солерос.jpg

[edit]

  • I don't understand the reason for decline this image without any question & chance for author or nominator to fix something. --Екатерина Борисова 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry but it's firstly a responsibility of the nominator to ensure that the QI guidelines are fulfilled. Poco a poco 20:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I even don't understand what do you mean by "ld missing". I didn't find ld abbreviation in phototraphy terms and in QI guidelines and Google tells me that "ld missing" means some software problems which I don't undersrand either. --Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I mean the species of the plant --Poco a poco 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I oppose this image, even though I would usually support it. Quality looks good and the ID of the genus should be sufficient IMO. However, the wrong genus was picked. Salicornia is supposed to have articulate inflorescences, with three flowers in each section and the leaves should be reduced to scales. I can see a lot of succulent, but otherwise ordinary leaves and the flowers or fruits look very different from Salicornia species. I simply do not know enough about the area of origin to decide whether this could be a Suaeda species or something from a quite different genus. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Robert, many thanks for informative and helpful comment. Me and Красный (who knows plants much more better than I) tried to improve the description and category, see his comment below. Please check now is this all correct. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert, good picture but apparently wrong description and categorization. The best photo is useless when no one knows what it shows. --Plozessor 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment This is an obvious reason for comments, but not a reason to decline the photo at first take, because there is a chance to fix the problem. -- Екатерина Борисова 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I understood that you don't know which plant it is, and since you didn't take the picture, you probably won't be able to identify it with enough certainty. --Plozessor 16:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've changed category and description of a picture according to the Flora incognita, while Robert before suggested the same genus. Красный 17:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Not a good idea IMO, AI tools are not 100 % accurate and some features required for identification might even be not visible in the image. --Plozessor 16:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
     Comment This may be a matter of correct location and what the AI was trained on. At least in Germany, if it is used on freshly taken smartphone photos, Flora incognita does really great and its suggestions for identification are very close to expert level. However, while it was trained on ca. 32,000 plant species, i.e. a lot more than just the German vascular plants, identification as Suaeda maritima in this area is unexpected. I found a recent Open Access publication about Suaeda species from the Aral-Balkhash region flora from a herbarium collection at Almaty, see https://doi.org/10.31489/2024BMG2/76-85. The authors mention fifteen species from the genus in the entire region, but Suaeda maritima is not one of them. Therefore, an ID as Category:Unidentified Suaeda (with analogous changes in the descriptions and the captions) would be acceptable identification IMO, considering the suggestion by Flora incognita, but clearly not an identification as Suaeda maritima. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Palais_Walderdorff_Trier_August_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palais Walderdorff in Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate. -- Felix Koenig 16:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sky and shadows noisy, paving stones blurred. Fixable? --Nino Verde 13:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done in over a week.--Peulle 08:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Not so bad. Worth to discuss. --Milseburg 15:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Sharpness could be a little bit better. But I think it is good for QI. -- Spurzem 08:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely a good picture for the type of camera, and IMO over the bar for QI. (@Peulle and Milseburg: Did you actually want to object/support?) --Plozessor 15:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks good enough for QI. --Milseburg 10:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 10:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Panthera_uncia,_Krefeld_-_0284+91.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera uncia in Zoo Krefeld, Germany --Аныл Озташ 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only one ear in focus, also bad processing (poserisation and noise) --George Chernilevsky 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The back ear is slightly out of focus, yes, but does it really affect the image? What do you mean by posterisation? To be honest, the noise is marginal. --Аныл Озташ 14:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail is easily good enough for QI. I'm not a fan of the massive negative space above the animal, but that's a question of aesthetics. --MB-one 13:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Wondering about the variation in sharpness/detail/noise. Was this somehow AI-processed? --Plozessor 15:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. I isolated the background and added a slight motion blur and cross-hatching to it. There is also an iris blur around the snow leopard. Is that what you mean? --Аныл Озташ 21:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I can't find a correlation between sharpness and distance. For example, the left eye and the hair in the left ear ["left" from viewer's perspective] are sharp, but what appears to be the fur between those two spots is not. Of course that may have other reasons, but the most typical cause for such effects is (poor) AI processing. --Plozessor 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't care whether it's edited with AI or without AI, the photo seems to me to be over-processed. Not QI for me, unless we were to introduce a QI category ‘Artistic alienation in photography’. In any case, I completely miss the educational aspect here. --Smial 18:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Hochkalter vom Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 0240-92.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Malerwinkel at Hintersee near Ramsau (Berchtesgadener Land, Germany) to the Watzmann and the Hochkalter massif - shot from the water --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Partly overexposed sky. Don't think the composition with so much sky is succeeded. Wrong title. Watzman is not in the image but the Hochkalter. The moon looks unnatural large for this setting. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. The moon was taken with a focal length of 70 mm, I have noted this on the page. I opted for the brighter sky in place of the sun instead of a sun star because I liked it better that way. --Anil Ö. (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Title is correct now. But I'm not really convinced about the other issues mentionend.--Milseburg 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Aleja_Gwiazd_in_Kraków_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walk of Fame - Aleja Gwiazd in Kraków. Plaque for Claudia Cardinale --Kritzolina 14:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Can you perspective correct so that the plaque is face-on? (see some of my recent noms for examples) --Mike Peel 06:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I would like a discussion on this one. I think it's okay to have some images being taken from an angle like this; they don't all have to be from the face-on angle. Other opinions?--Peulle 08:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with 'the image being taken from an angle', also there are reasons for images with perspective, but in case you should skew the picture so that the plaque appears rectangular. --Plozessor 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Milseburg 10:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 10:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:149_New_Montgomery_roof_view_(Wikimedia_Foundation)_2016_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of skyscrapers being constructed, from the roof of the former Wikimedia Foundation building, 149 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California --Mike Peel 04:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough to be printed in A4 size. --Smial 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but above the bar for me. --Plozessor 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow on the left is disturbing for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 18:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per PantheraLeo1359531 and Augustgeyler. --Аныл Озташ 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Smartphone pictures works for low distance building, but here they are too far away. And the left shadow is distracting. --Sebring12Hrs 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Аныл Озташ 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 26 Aug → Tue 03 Sep
  • Tue 27 Aug → Wed 04 Sep
  • Wed 28 Aug → Thu 05 Sep
  • Thu 29 Aug → Fri 06 Sep
  • Fri 30 Aug → Sat 07 Sep
  • Sat 31 Aug → Sun 08 Sep
  • Sun 01 Sep → Mon 09 Sep
  • Mon 02 Sep → Tue 10 Sep
  • Tue 03 Sep → Wed 11 Sep