Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 8: Line 8:
== October 16, 2024 ==
== October 16, 2024 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:2024_Bardo,_ul._Krakowska_(3).jpg|{{/Nomination|Krakowska Street in Bardo --[[User:Jacek Halicki|Jacek Halicki]] 05:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:2024_Bardo,_zespół_szkolno-przedszkolny_(1).jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardo, school and kindergarten complex 1 --[[User:Jacek Halicki|Jacek Halicki]] 05:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:2024_Bardo,_zespół_szkolno-przedszkolny_(2).jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardo, school and kindergarten complex 2 --[[User:Jacek Halicki|Jacek Halicki]] 05:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:2024_Gorzuchów,_dawna_gorzelnia_(1).jpg|{{/Nomination|Former distillery in Gorzuchów 1 --[[User:Jacek Halicki|Jacek Halicki]] 05:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:2024_Gorzuchów,_dawna_gorzelnia_(2).jpg|{{/Nomination|Former distillery in Gorzuchów 2 --[[User:Jacek Halicki|Jacek Halicki]] 05:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}

File:Two_pupa_of_Eurema_blanda_(Boisduval,_1836)_-_Three-spot_Grass_Yellow_WLB.jpg|{{/Nomination|Two pupa of Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) - Three-spot Grass Yellow. By [[User:Anitava Roy]] --[[User:Atudu|Atudu]] 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:Two_pupa_of_Eurema_blanda_(Boisduval,_1836)_-_Three-spot_Grass_Yellow_WLB.jpg|{{/Nomination|Two pupa of Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) - Three-spot Grass Yellow. By [[User:Anitava Roy]] --[[User:Atudu|Atudu]] 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:Notocrypta_curvifascia_(C._&_R._Felder,_1862)_-_Restricted_Demon.jpg|{{/Nomination|Notocrypta curvifascia (C. & R. Felder, 1862) - Restricted Demon. By [[User:B Savit]] --[[User:Atudu|Atudu]] 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:Notocrypta_curvifascia_(C._&_R._Felder,_1862)_-_Restricted_Demon.jpg|{{/Nomination|Notocrypta curvifascia (C. & R. Felder, 1862) - Restricted Demon. By [[User:B Savit]] --[[User:Atudu|Atudu]] 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|}}

Revision as of 05:46, 16 October 2024

Nominations

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]] 01:17, 18 October 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).


October 16, 2024

October 15, 2024

October 14, 2024

October 13, 2024

October 12, 2024

October 11, 2024

October 10, 2024

October 9, 2024

October 8, 2024

October 7, 2024

October 6, 2024

October 5, 2024

October 4, 2024

October 2, 2024

October 1, 2024

September 30, 2024

September 29, 2024

September 24, 2024

Consensual review

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:Соборная_мечеть_(деталь)_в_Санкт-Петербурге,_Россия_2H1A4281WI.jpg

  • Nomination Minaret (by Kora27) --FBilula 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pixelation in the sky should be improved --Poco a poco 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)  Support But subject is clear QI, its not FP nomine. --PetarM 17:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    Overruling reviews of other users is not a best practice. Moving to CR --Poco a poco 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)  Comment I didnt saw you put a vote !? That is not overruling. --PetarM 18:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mating_pair_of_Cigaritis_vulcanus_-_Common_Silverline.jpg

  • Nomination Mating pair of Cigaritis vulcanus - Common Silverline. By User:Sarpitabose --Atudu 12:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Lack of DOF (see head of the lower butterfly) - elsewhere a beautiful picture --Grunpfnul 18:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support The head on the left is slightly out of focus, but you can see it's because it's positioned slightly to the back. The right head and both abdomens (where the action is, so to speak) are in focus. So the most important parts are sharp, and the out of focus bit isn't that bad, and circumstantial rather than through a mistake of the photographer. You get a low DOF for macro shots like these, and I think we should be slightly more charitable towards those circumstances. ReneeWrites 18:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Blühendes_Barock_-_Schüssele-See_01.jpg

  • Nomination Schüssele Lake with fountain, Blühendes Barock, Ludwigsburg, Germany --Llez 04:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    CA in the top of the tree --Michielverbeek 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the hint --Llez 11:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, it's looking better, QI for me now. --Michielverbeek 06:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergerac_-_Place_Pélissière_&_Église_Saint-Jacques_-_1.jpg

  • Nomination Bergerac (Dordogne, France) - Pélissière square and St James church --Benjism89 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sensordust --Grunpfnul 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't find any dust spots, where are they? --Plozessor 08:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, few dust spots. --Plozessor 08:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I see a few birds in the sky, which are pretty blurry. I don't think, that it makes the picture unusable. -- Spurzem 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
No issue with the birds, but there are clear round dust spots. --Plozessor 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just uploaded a new file with the dust spots removed. Hope they are all gone. --Benjism89 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support So it seems, good now! --Plozessor 03:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergerac_-_Quai_Salvette_-_05.jpg

  • Nomination Bergerac (Dordogne, France) - Quai Salvette (former harbour), view from the east --Benjism89 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose i disagree - sensor dust in the sky --Grunpfnul 18:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple dust spots. --Plozessor 08:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I just uploaded a new file with the dust spots removed. Hope they are all gone. --Benjism89 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Plozessor 03:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At Geneva 2024 472 - SBB RABDe 500 Interior.jpg

  • Nomination SBB RABDe 500 Interior at Genève-Aéroport railway station --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights and overprocessed. Looks like a mobile phone shot. --Peulle 09:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It is a mobile phone shot, but that should be taken into account when assesing for QI. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Is it OK to discuss this one? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed smartphone picture. Smartphones can take acceptable pictures in good light conditions, but this was taken with ISO 640 and is blurry and lacking detail. --Plozessor 05:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Btw, also filename. --Plozessor 05:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
File renamed, not sure there's much more I can do. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad for a smart phone. I'm always willing to accept compromises in difficult lighting conditions or action shots, especially when it comes to image noise, but too much detail has been lost here due to the noise reduction. --Smial 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Ruislip_Lido_2024_072.jpg

  • Nomination Ruislip Lido Railway No. 7 Graham Alexander on the turntable --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Perspective warp. --Peulle 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Lens profile corrected, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, this still needs perspective correction. Right side is clearly leaning out (see the "sitesafe" at the edge). Then, right side is also lower than left side. Both can be fixed easily with Photoshop's "skew" and "perspective" functions or similar in other tools. Also, it is obvious (especially from the "sitesafe") that there was some AI processing in place; however, I would accept that if the perspective was fixed. --Plozessor 09:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that helps. New version uploaded with the perspective redone. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, acceptable now! --Plozessor 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 Question Is there any way to get the cropped left foot of back in the frame changing the aspect ration and cropping more from the bottom? --MB-one 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Peter_Abbey_of_Marcilhac-sur-Cele_14.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Peter Abbey of Marcilhac-sur-Cele (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support It might be a bit deformed, but verticals are straight. Good enough for QI imo --Michielverbeek 06:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Soory but I disagree, unrealistic proportions due to heavy PC. --Benjism89 18:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. Just shrink the upper part a bit in 3 or 4 steps, then it would look fine. --Plozessor 09:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mainroth_Bahnstrecke_Bamberg–Hof-20240815-RM-172833.jpg

  • Nomination Bamberg-Hof railroad line Aerial view --Ermell 04:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose This is far below your usual quality, it's quite grainy and with low detail. Looks a bit like horizontal camera shake and an attempt to fix that with sharpening. --Plozessor 04:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The view into the distance is blurred by the compressed air. The image is already sharpened to the maximum. I don't want to overdo it. --Ermell 08:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems to be overprocessed or oversharpened. --Sebring12Hrs 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:زاوية_بن_صميم.jpg

  • Nomination Ben smim village, Michlifen dam, with agricultural lands and oak forest. --User:Mounir Neddi 21:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough imo --Michielverbeek 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I think it's sharp enough for a landscape. Let's get another opinion User:Mounir Neddi 10:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Quite soft. Also, looks tilted CW. And there's no description (see point 2 in the Guidelines).--Peulle 11:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that the description could be in any language (here it's situated at the right side of info template) since we have the category in English. But the image itself is far from QI. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Description is ok (it's just in Arabic and is displayed right-aligned). Quality is borderline but IMO above the bar. --Plozessor 03:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:King_Henrys_Road,_London_(LRM_20240515_134252).jpg

  • Nomination King Henry's Road in the Borough of Camden, Greater London --MB-one 08:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed or oversharpened. --Sebring12Hrs 09:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done should be better now --MB-one 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO overprocessed, probably AI-processed by the smartphone, the trees are just green areas etc. --Plozessor 05:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It was processed from RAW in Lightroom, not by the smartphone. --MB-one 16:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, still it was taken with a smartphone, so one way or the other it had to be processed to compensate for the small sensor (but the result is still below the QI bar for me). Also, that camera has 50 MP but the picture has only 12 MP; was it cropped or downscaled? --Plozessor 03:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Good Point @Plozessor: It seems, that the image prozessor is downscaling by default to 12 MPix. I can select "50 Mpix" in the camera app, but then I wont get a raw file only HEIF. Thank you for your input. --MB-one 07:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 05:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Buckingham_Palace_and_the_Victoria_Memorial_seen_from_The_Mall,_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Buckingham Palace and the Victoria Memorial seen from The Mall, 2024. --Hotolmo22 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Verticals on the right are leaning to the left. Perspective correction needed. --Milseburg 09:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell me how I can solve the problem? --Hotolmo22 13:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
You need a software to fix it. Photoshop do it. I don't know what free software can do it. When taking the photo, make sure there is enough space around the edges. --Milseburg 16:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll try to fix it --Hotolmo22 15:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done --Hotolmo22 21:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done No, you just rotated, I guess. The laterne on the right ist still tilted as the fassade behind. You can't solve it by rotation, because then the fassade on the left becomes tilted. --Milseburg 09:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I hope it's okay now --Hotolmo22 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Weak support Better, not perfect, but good enough for QI, I guess. --Milseburg 19:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I tried to edit the photo. Let me know --Hotolmo22 00:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and perspective are not good. --Sebring12Hrs 20:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective might be acceptable but overall quality is not enough. Not sharp, halos around objects, too dark, etc. --Plozessor 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Val_Montanaia.jpg

  • Nomination View on Val Montanaia and the "campanile" in the Parco naturale delle Dolomiti Friulane (Q683241) By User:Scosse --Civvì 08:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Phyrexian 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Looks good but also heavily downsized. --Milseburg 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the camera is capable of a massive 60MP and this is only 6. A missed opportunity for a spectacular landscape shot.--Peulle 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still 6 MP and razor-sharp and otherwise perfect. --Plozessor 07:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I have become quite tolerant of the application of the downsample rule, but I would not water it down so much. --Milseburg 09:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still good. --Sebring12Hrs 11:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsampling is specifically against the image guidelines. If people want to ignore that rule there should be a discussion around changing the guidelines, but as it stands this image is ineligible. BigDom 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment We don't even know whether this image has been downsampled, it could as well be cropped.
 Comment If it is a crop, the author has to ask himself why he chose a setting that was far too large when taking the photo. In his portfolio, all images are smaller than the camera allows.--Milseburg 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Milseburg: Yes, that's right. Still, unsure what to do. Yes, if you take the QI guidelines to the letter, downsampling is listed as undesired. On the other hand, even if downsampled, this picture is by far better than many other pictures that are promoted QI. This is a basic issue with QI anyway, see the discussion here. A picture taken with a 60 MP professional camera and then downscaled to 20 MP, be it as perfect and razor-sharp as can be, is not QI because it's downscaled, while a slightly blurry and washed out 12 MP picture of the same scene taken with a smartphone is QI because it's not downscaled. --Plozessor (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Additional comment: The author could simply remove the EXIF data, then we wouldn't know that it's downscaled and would gladly promote it ... --Plozessor 03:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
These are all arguments you can use against continuing to use the guideline. You have to do that on the general discussion page. It's not the first time. We still have the guidline. We have to evaluate images here that were taken with very different performance devices. I think it's entirely appropriate that users of high-quality devices are subject to corresponding requirements. Here it looks to me as if the author has scaled the image down to make it appear better quality, especially in terms of sharpness. It must also be remembered that the author is not the nominator. The author could have downscaled it out of indifference to receiving a QI award. Or he is keeping the high-resolution original in reserve for possible sale. We don't know. It is questionable for me that professionals have to put in less effort to operate their expensive cameras than amateurs with small devices.--Milseburg (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I did mention that "on the general discussion page", but no one responded... --Plozessor 08:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The last discussion about that I remenber you can found here: Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 21#Again: downsized candidates --Milseburg 09:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to intervene, I will try to contact the author to ask if they are willing to upload a better resolution version of this photo. This is often an issue with users who only participate to WL* contests but I think this picture deserves the attempt. Many thanks! --Civvì 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At Geneva 2024 470 - Tram at Ponts de l'Île.jpg

  • Nomination Tram at Ponts de l'Île, Geneva --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unclear subject of photo. If it's the tram then it's not very prominent. --AVDLCZ 09:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The image, description and categories mention both the tram and the bridge's name. And the picture clearly shows the bridge with a tram on it. --ArildV 10:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If we're strict then the file name does not meet the requirements in Commons:File naming (like most of Mike's pictures). I suggest to rename at least the QI candidates to something meaningful. Otherwise, this is a smartphone picture of borderline quality, but IMO it would be above the bar. I would support it with a proper filename. --Plozessor (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thx, otherwise the picture is good (at least for a smartphone image). --Plozessor 09:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 09:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chicago_2024_016.jpg

  • Nomination LaSalle (CTA) station, Chicago --Mike Peel 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Detail is too low --Poco a poco 09:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition and detail enough for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There seems to be adequate detail for a shot in difficult conditions, but if you take a closer look then it's apparently AI-generated (see the text on signs etc). --Plozessor 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    • @Plozessor: No AI was used, beyond whatever Apple builds into its phones that can't be turned off... Thanks. Mike Peel 16:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Still, I think that a QI should show reality, not how AI thinks reality would look like. I've said that before, but it's simply hard to take QI with smartphones in non-perfect light conditions. --Plozessor 09:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 05:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Assumption_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary_church_in_Castel_d'Ario_(8).jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary church in Castel d'Ario, Lombardy, Italy. --Tournasol7 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose bad perspective? --GiovanniPen 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad perspective ? I don't see any issue. --Sebring12Hrs 07:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Strong distorsion due to heavy perspective correction. --Benjism89 17:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergamo_-_Rocca_di_Bergamo_-_2023-10-29_4550.jpg

  • Nomination Rocca di Bergamo at night. --C messier 19:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose blurred flag --GiovanniPen 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Long exposure by night, it's absolutely normal. --Sebring12Hrs 07:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Unless you have 50K€ equipment, you need long exposure for a decent night shot, but then the flag moves. That is ok. --Plozessor 11:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Really? --GoldenArtists 13:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. The blurred flag even gives something extra to this picture IMO. --Benjism89 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Hassan_Tower_3.jpg

  • Nomination Hassan Tower in Rabat, Morocco -- IssamBarhoumi 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top crop is a bit too tight in my opinion, and the image is underexposed. --Benjism89 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with benjism --GiovanniPen 10:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done dear GiovanniPen and Benjism89 I improved the light but for the crop I can not do better --IssamBarhoumi 01:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    • The exposition is better, thanks. But the crop top is still an issue to me, and the sharpness and noise are borderline. --Benjism89 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 14:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Istanbul_(TR),_Burgazada,_Kirche_"Aya_Yani"_--_2024_--_0814.jpg

  • Nomination Church of St. John (Aya Yani) on Burgazada (Princes' Islands) --A. Öztas 00:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 01:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd skew it a bit (make it lower on the left side). Overall it is not bad. --Plozessor 16:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I won't make any further perspective corrections here, as the object has straight lines and is very close to the church or depicts it from this perspective with this focal length of 12 mm. If it's promoted as QI, it is - if not, it's not. I like it how it is and I'm happy with it. --A. Öztas 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me as it is. Picture was taken from maximum distance possible. --Plozessor 03:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:DB_Premium_Lounge,_Berlin_(LRM_20210709_165042-RR).jpg

  • Nomination DB Premium Lounge Berlin Hauptbahnhof --MB-one 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose overexposed roof --GiovanniPen 12:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Most of the ceiling is fine. Some bright spots are unavoidable and not disturbing here. --MB-one 13:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ceiling isn't over-exposed, it's just very bright. There are no areas where it's completely white like you would normally see when a photo is over-exposed. ReneeWrites 10:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposure is perfectly fine. Picture is also very good otherwise, except that it's slightly tilted. That is easy to fix though. --Plozessor 16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 18:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now!
  •  Support Good now ! --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Torba_-_Monastero_0071.jpg

  • Nomination Torba Abbey in Gornate Olona, Italy. --Phyrexian 06:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 21:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At the limit in sharpness. I ask for more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 10:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Borderline sharpness indeed, @Phyrexian: maybe you can sharpen it a bit more. --Plozessor 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

File:SW_Padum_Market_Reru_Road_Zanskar_Jun24_A7CR_01086.jpg

  • Nomination Street scenes near market, NPD Road heading south, Padum --Tagooty 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Leaning out of the left side, otherwise good. --Plozessor 03:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: ✓ Done Please see new version --Tagooty 05:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thx, good now! --Plozessor 16:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Personality rights warning --GiovanniPen 10:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @GiovanniPen: ✓ Done Thanks for pointing this out. I've added PR template. Please review. --Tagooty 09:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 14:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bergamo_-_Cappella_Colleoni_-_2023-10-29_4469.jpg

  • Nomination The facade of the Colleoni Chapel, Bergamo, at night. --C messier 19:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately too grainy because of the high ISO --Michielverbeek 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Can be denoised, if C messier has the RAW file the result will be better, another oportunity --Ezarate 20:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --C messier 11:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now --Ezarate 22:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 14:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)