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 July 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 July 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 July 04 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]] 12:21, 4 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 04, 2024

[edit]

July 03, 2024

[edit]

July 02, 2024

[edit]

July 01, 2024

[edit]

June 30, 2024

[edit]

June 29, 2024

[edit]

June 28, 2024

[edit]

June 27, 2024

[edit]

June 26, 2024

[edit]

June 25, 2024

[edit]

June 24, 2024

[edit]

June 23, 2024

[edit]

June 22, 2024

[edit]

June 21, 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:Barmhartigheid,_Hooge_Zwaluwe_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue "Barmhartigheid" (Mercy) in Hooge Zwaluwe --ReneeWrites 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low and not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 08:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Hwaseong_Fortress_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chemin de ronde in Hwaseong Fortress, South Korea --Bgag 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Seems to need perspective correction, concluding from the high-rise buildings in the background --Plozessor 03:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done --Bgag 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Glori_3.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Catherine Palace - western facade. By User:Игорь Гордеев --Lvova 08:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Good image, but resolution and detail are too low here. --Augustgeyler 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support This one is good in sharpness come on ! --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Borderline resolution, but sharpness and detail seem perfect to me. --Plozessor 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment The camera has 21 megapixels. To get such a small image it must have been downsized – which is against QIC – or massively cropped. --Augustgeyler 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. The image size only slightly exceeds the hard limit for QIC, and with static motifs like this one, that is clearly not enough these days. The narrower side of the image should be at least 2000 pixels or the whole photo 6 Mpixels or more. I have no fundamental objection to a moderate downscaling if the shooting conditions are difficult. You can't reject Moroder's 60 Mpixel++ images because they have two pixel wide CA residues or blurs of similar smallness, but on the other hand promote small images like this one that hide such defects. --Smial 11:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Oriental_Shorthair_Kitten.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Oriental Shorthair kitten --Felinlove 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Sorry, part of the subject is out of focus. That could me acceptable in my opinion for an animal shot in nature, but not for an animal posing in a flat. --Benjism89 21:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question - Could you please clarify which part of the object is out of focus and why you think so? --Felinlove 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Felinlove: If you disagree then this should be moved to discussion. IMO the cat's belly is OOF and in general the whole picture is not perfectly sharp, thus
    •  Weak oppose from my side. --Plozessor 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose per above. --SHB2000 04:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --SHB2000 04:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Lábrido_(Coris_gaimard),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_67.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Variable bushy feather star (Coris gaimard), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Not in focus, sorry --ReneeWrites 09:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree, may I ask for further opinions? --Poco a poco 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support The eye and the head are not pin sharp but quite tolerable.--Ermell 10:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Per Ermell. --Plozessor 04:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:L5_Sydney_Light_Rail_diagram.png

    [edit]

    • Nomination Route diagram of L5 on the Sydney Light Rail network. --SHB2000 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Question Why are there different thicknesses in fonts? --Basile Morin 04:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • semi-bold represents a terminus and/or interchange, bold is for the title. --SHB2000 05:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Atkins road, interchange? --Basile Morin 05:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • That's bolded due to the terminus (see turnback at OSM). --SHB2000 10:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Looks like "Murdoch Road" does not exist --Basile Morin 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Done – Fixed that. --SHB2000 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Are there more issues, like this? I'm not from Sydney and could easily find an error. Also it looks like Robin Thomas is linked to F3. Ferry terminus seems misplaced. Can't find any indication of Atkins road's terminus on this map. Which source has been used to create the document? How to verify the content? --Basile Morin 02:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    I live close to the line, so a lot of the knowledge is somewhat local and on-the-ground. Robin Thomas may be equidistant from F3 as Parramatta Square, but the official maps on the L4 trams (no photos and not open yet – I got to go in on a community event) encourage using Parramatta Square as the ferry interchange and I'd rather reflect that as I have with all my other Sydney public transit diagrams. Atkins Road turnback is based on the environmental impact map (I have it saved offline), but you can see the turnback on OSM (I can't link the URL without breaking the template, but just enter "map=18/-33.81554/151.06620" after the # to see the turnback). --SHB2000 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Or just copy https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.81553/151.06562 into your browser for Atkins Road turnback. --SHB2000 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Connections to Tramway Avenue and Robin Thomas seem to be missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Font emphasis with no symbol and no indication on why the text is bold sounds like unconventional. A new version of this file has now been uploaded with a different title (and a misleading summary since the major change is not the imperceptible modification of the "L4 color" but more obviously the title) and I don't think this diagram respects the norms of any official map.
    This file "L5" is currently used on a Wikipedia page L4 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parramatta_Light_Rail&diff=next&oldid=1232143401 ). Do you have a reliable source to confirm the name L5 is associated to Parramatta (like here for L4)? -- Basile Morin 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Purely from technical side, this picture seems good, I don't see the need for 'an indication why the text is bold' because it's implicit that the bold stations are somehow important. But I can't judge the correctness. --Plozessor 04:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    • The picture looks very good, yes, and that's a problem, because it doesn't come from a serious institution, and its content is unreliable / potentially erroneous. It was called "Parramatta-Olympic Park Light Rail Line Diagram" and now it is "L5 Parramatta & Olympic Park Line diagram". Maybe tomorrow it should be named differently according to the authorities and we will have a Quality Image with wrong facts and labels -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question Can you show an official source with this logo L5 (color and number)? -- Basile Morin 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 03:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Ponta_da_Espalamaca3.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Ponta da Espalamaca seen from the Pico-Faial ferry, Azores. --The Cosmonaut 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Is is a nice scene. But the left part is completely unsharp. And the general level of detail and sharpness is quite low. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per August.--Ermell 10:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Borderline, but with the unsharp left part just under the bar IMO. --Plozessor 04:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Minor_masjidi_10.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Minor Mosque (exterior details), Tashkent, Uzbekistan. By User:Humoyun Mehridinov --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Sorry, but this is somehow overprocessed and not really sharp. Maybe it can be at least improved with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 09:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Good enough. Красный 10:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Not sharp at all. Very low quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose The image lost to much detail due to over-processing or it suffered from camera shake. --August Geyler (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Plac_Powstańców_Styczniowych,_Sosnowiec,_Akcja_rozdawania_plakatów_Sosnowca_przez_Towarzystwo_Przyjaciół_Sosnowca,_22_czerwiec_2024_227.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination The campaign of handing out posters of Sosnowiec by the Society of Friends of Sosnowiec at Powstańców Styczniowych Square in Sosnowiec, June 22, 2024 --KrzysztofPoplawski 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The verticals must be corrected. --Ermell 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support It is a proper used wide-angle lens with some lens distortion. The verticals are mostly good. So I think they could be improved a little, but the image is already QI due to smallness of that issue. --August Geyler (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support per Augustgeyler. --Smial 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support QI in my eyes. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Nebbia_su_colli_e_monti_-_Foreste_Casentinesi_-_Appennino_Tosco_Emiliano_-_GT_01_-_2024_01_28.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Advection fog on hills and the Italian Apenninesː Casentino Forest National Park. --Terragio67 19:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Nice in the preview. But I'm not shure, if  Level of detail too low meets the criteria. Please discuss. --Milseburg 09:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak support LoD seems acceptable, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support sharp enough regarding the rather high resolution. Nice scene, composition, and lighting. --Smial 23:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Per Smial.--Tournasol7 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose per Milseburg. --Augustgeyler 11:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:Olympus_National_Park_19.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Peaks of Mount Olympus seen from the blue route, Olympus National Park. --Kallerna 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 19:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Right side is leaning out (fixable). --Tournasol7 04:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support good quality now. Thanks for your correction. --Tournasol7 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Agree with Tournasol7, however, the buildings are a really small and unimportant part of the image which is otherwise very good. --Plozessor 15:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support now. --Plozessor 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Very good image with very minor perspective issues at the little buildings. --Augustgeyler 18:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Okay and QI in my eyes. Issues are marginal.--Milseburg 14:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Perspective tweaked. --Kallerna 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:S8_zwischen_Geisenbrunn_und_Gilching-Argelsried_03.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination A train of the Munich S8 line between the stops of Geisenbrunn and Gilching-Argelsried going towards Herrsching passing through LSG Steinberg --Kritzolina 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 17:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose The bridge pier should be vertical. --Ermell 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Info Moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support IMO good enough without trying to fix the perspective. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Overexposed, and the trees on right side are blurry a bit, but I think it can be fixed. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

    File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(10).jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Unfortunately due to camera angle and perspective correction the church looks too distorted. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Still acceptable to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs ReneeWrites 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed and extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Underexposed.--Ermell 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, a bit late.--Ermell 07:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
      Kallerna, Ermell; I brightned the image a bit. It's better? --Tournasol7 18:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 07:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_064.jpg

    [edit]

    • Nomination Monkey Puzzle (Araucaria araucana) at Kew Gardens --Mike Peel 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Discussion
    •  Oppose Too much noise to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 00:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    [edit]
    • Wed 26 Jun → Thu 04 Jul
    • Thu 27 Jun → Fri 05 Jul
    • Fri 28 Jun → Sat 06 Jul
    • Sat 29 Jun → Sun 07 Jul
    • Sun 30 Jun → Mon 08 Jul
    • Mon 01 Jul → Tue 09 Jul
    • Tue 02 Jul → Wed 10 Jul
    • Wed 03 Jul → Thu 11 Jul
    • Thu 04 Jul → Fri 12 Jul