Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 89% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
Saltar a nominaciones

Éstas son las candidatas a convertirse en Imagen de Calidad. Por favor, que quede claro que no es lo mismo que Imágenes destacadas. Adicionalmente, en caso de que desees información sobre tus imágenes, puedes conseguirla en Críticas fotográficas.

Objetivo

El objetivo de las imágenes de calidad es alentar a la gente que son la base de Commons, los usuarios individuales que proporcionan las imágenes para expandir esta colección. Mientras que las imágenes destacadas identifican a las mejores de todas las imágenes subidas a Commons, las Imágenes de Calidad sirven para identificar y alentar los esfuerzos de los usuarios para subir imágenes de calidad a Commons. Además, las imágenes de calidad podrían ser un lugar donde otros usuarios expliquen métodos para mejorar una imagen.


Directrices

Todas las imágenes nominadas deben ser el resultado del trabajo de los usuarios de Commons.

Para los nominadores

A continuación se incluyen las directrices generales para Imágenes de Calidad, y un criterio más detallado está disponible en Directrices de imágenes.

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Estado de derecho de autor. Los candidatos de imagen de calidad necesitan estar disponible bajo una licencia apropiada. Vea Commons:Sobre las licencias.
  2. Imágenes deben cumplir con todos los políticas y prácticas de Commons, incluyendo Commons:Fotografías de personas identificables.
  3. Imágenes de calidad tendrán un nombre de archivo significativo, serán categorizadas apropiadamente y tendrán una descripción precisa en la página de archivo en más de uno idioma. Es preferible, pero no es obligatorio, incluir una descripción en inglés.
  4. No habrá publicidades, firmas o marcas de agua en la imagen. Información sobre el autor y el derecho de autor de las imágenes de calidad debe estar ubicada en la página de archivo y se podría estar contenido en los metadatos del archivo, pero no debe interferir con el contenido visual de la imagen.

Creador
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Las imágenes deben haber creado por un Wikimedista para ser eligible para esta etiqueta de calidad. Para dar un ejemplo, esto significa que imágenes que provengan de Flickr no son eligibles. Tenga en cuenta que imágenes destacadas no están sujetas a este requisito. Reproducciones fotográficas de obras de arte bidimensionales, hechas por Wikimedistas, si son eligibles y deben ser marcadas con la licencia apropiada. Si se promoviera una imagen mientras que no fuera la creación de un Wikimedista, se debería quitar la etiqueta de imagen de calidad en cuanto se observaría.


Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Imágenes de formato ráster (JPEG, PNG, GIFF, TIFF) serán al mínimo de tamaño 2 megapixels; lectores desearían un tamaño más grande para los sujetos que puedan ser fotografiados fácilmente. Esto es porque las imágenes de Commons pueden usarse para la impresión, para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución, o para utilizarse en medias futuras. Esta norma excluye los gráficos vectoriales (SVG) y imágenes generadas por ordenador y construidas con software libre, lo cual debe ser indicado en la descripción del archivo.

Calidad de las Imágenes

Las imágenes digitales pueden sufrir diversos problemas originados en la captura y procesamiento de la imagen como ruido, problemas con la compresión JPEG, falta de información, zonas de sombra o de relieve, o problemas con la captura de colores. Todos estos temas deben ser manejados correctamente.

Composición e iluminación

El arreglo del sujeto principal de una imagen debe contribuir a la propia imagen. Los objetos de fondo no deben distraer. La iluminación y el foco también han de contribuir al resultado global; el sujeto ha de destacar, ser completo y estar bien expuesto.

Valor

Nuestro objetivo principal es favorecer la calidad de las imágenes que contribuyen a Wikicommons, algo valioso para los proyectos de Wikimedia.

Cómo nominar

Simplemente agregue una línea de código desde esta forma a la parte superior de la sección de nominaciones: Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|muy breve descripción  --~~~~ |}}

La descripción no deben incluir más de unas palabras. Favor deje una línea blanca entre la nominación tuya y las demás.

Si usted está nominando una imagen por otro usuario, indique su nombre en la descripción como se indica a continuación:

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|Una descripción breve (por [[Usuario:NOMBRE|NOMBRE]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un accesorio que acelera las nominaciones. El accesorio añade un enlace pequeño a la parte superior de cada página de archivo, lo cual se marca "Nómina esta imagen para QI". Al hacer clic, el archivo será agregado a una lista de candidatos guardados de su elección. Al fin de completar la lista, empiece a editar Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. A la parte superior de la página de edición, se mostrará una barra verde. Al hacer clic en la barra, se insertará todos los candidatos guardados a la caja de texto para su conveniencia.

Número de nominaciones

Seleccione detenidamente las imágenes mejores para nominar. No más de cinco imágenes pueden ser nominados por usuario por día.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado, que lleve al menos 10 días, haya realizado 50 ediciones y quién no sea el autor de la obra ni el nominador, puede revisar una nominación.

Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

Cómo actualizar el estado

Examina cuidadosamente la imagen. Ábrela en la máxima resolución, y mira si se cumplen los criterios de calidad.

  • Si decides promover la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

a:

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Promotion| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Promotion y añade tu firma, a ser posible con algún pequeño comentario.

  • Si decides declinar la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Decline| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué no te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Decline y añade tu firma, a ser posible declarando los criterios por los que la imagen falló (puedes usar títulos de la sección de las directrices). Si hay muchos problemas, por favor notifica sólo los 2 o 3 más severos, y añade multiple problems. Cuando declines una nominación, por favor explica las razones en la página de discusión del nominador - como regla general, debes ser agradable y alentador! En el mensaje deberías dar una explicación más detallada de tu decisión.

Nota: Por favor, evalúa primero las imágenes más antiguas.

Período de gracia y promoción

Si no hay objeciones en un período de 2 días (exactamente: 48 horas) desde su revisión, la imagen se promueve o no, de acuerdo con la revisión que recibió. Si tienes objeciones, mueve la imagen al estado Consensual review.

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

QICbot actúa automáticamente estos 2 días después de que la decisión se ha tomado, y las imágenes promovidas son guardadas en Promovidas recientemente a la espera de la inserción manual en una apropiada página de Imágenes de Calidad.

Si crees que has encontrado una imagen excepcional que merece el estatus de Imagen destacada, entonces nomínala también en Commons:Featured picture candidates

Instrucciones de cerrar candidaturas manualmente (úselas solo en caso de emergencia)

Si se promueve,

  1. Añadir la imagen al grupo o grupos apropiados de páginas Imágenes de Calidad. La imagen también necesita ser añadida a las sub páginas asociadas, sólo 3-4 de las imágenes más nuevas han de ser mostradas en la página principal.
  2. Añadir la plantilla {{QualityImage}}la imagen.
  3. Mover la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives mayo 2024
  4. Añadir la plantilla {{File:imagename.jpg}} a la página de discusión del usuario.

Si declinaste,

  1. ueve la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives mayo 2024.
  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2024 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

La revisión de consenso es un lugar utilizado en el caso en que el procedimiento descrito anteriormente sea insuficiente y necesite discusión para que surjan más opiniones.

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

Si esto parece demasiado complicado, sólo cambia /Promotion, /Decline a /Discuss y añade tus comentarios inmediatamente tras la revisión. Alguien la moverá a la sección de revisión de consenso. O sólo intentalo, acertarás si sigues cuidadosamente lo que todo el mundo hace.

Por favor, sólo envía cosas a la revisión de consenso que hayan sido revisadas como promovidas / declinadas. Si, como revisor, no puedes tomar una decisión, añade tus comentarios, pero deja el candidato en esta página.

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: purge this page's cache

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]] 19:31, 30 mayo 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 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 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:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree Gnangarra. Coat of arms are different. Its not a reproduction imo. It is created from a Blazon. In heraldry and heraldic vexillology, a blazon is a formal description of a coat of arms, flag or similar emblem, from which the reader can reconstruct the appropriate image. Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation. --ArildV 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I also disagree with Gnangarra. Coat of Arms designed on Commons are based on a blazon, which is a precisely accurate description of the Coat of Arms. It is not a reproduction, since the design is unique to that blazon. It is in the same style (color palette, philosophy of design, et cetera) as other commons coat of arms, and that is called the Sodacan style, but still the image is created by the user.
  •  Question Is this representation correct? See source here.--Peulle 09:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_Contea_di_Tripoli.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the County of Tripoli --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Origin aside, I think this image is too simple to be considered a QI.--Peulle 09:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the House of Porcia --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree again with Gnangarra for the same reason as earlier. Ashoppio 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:BYD_Dolphin_(Global_version)_IMG_9517.jpg

  • Nomination BYD Dolphin (Global version) in Ulm --Alexander-93 10:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Neutral I don't understand why nearly all your images are cropped so elongated and flat. Is this supposed to be a trademark? -- Spurzem 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main object in this image is the vehicle being charged. The BYD and the charging station have IMHO enough space to the boundaries of the image. More space at the bottom/top would distract the viewer from the main objects. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 19:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I didn't vote against, but suggested that the photos advertised as QI should not be squeezed together again and again. If there is enough space above and below the main subject, no one will be distracted. -- Spurzem 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the image. Cropping is OK as long as we're not talking about downsizing and it serves to improve the image on display.--Peulle 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the aspect ratio. --Milseburg 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is the car, IMO the crop is quite perfect here. Picture is also good otherwise. --Plozessor 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Yaphank, New York --Mike Peel 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The buildings are too distorted and the front could be a bit brighter. Please compare the edited version and discuss whether the original photo is a QI. -- Spurzem 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd prefer the original version of Spurzem's (which is less distorted but tilted). Something in-between would be optimal I guess. --Plozessor 16:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Степная_ящерица.jpg

  • Nomination Steppe Agama in Karakiya-karakol sanctuary. Karakiya District, Mangystau Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Ezra Sheyner --Красный 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noise , the focus only on the head --TOUMOU 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Somewhat low DOF, but focus is ok, and the noise level is acceptable. --Smial 11:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks more like a portrait than a nature photography. I can't decide whether it's good or bad. -- Екатерина Борисова 07:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Understandable that not the whole animal can be sharp, but the sharp area is too small for my taste. --Plozessor 16:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

  • Nomination Parish church Saints Philip and James, Arriach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --IM3847 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not convinced of a good quality. The image is cropped too close at the bottom and the tower is badly distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg

  • Nomination Frontenac County Courthouse, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but not lucky with lighting --IM3847 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sunny weather is not a requirement, so I ask for another opinion --The Cosmonaut 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Even if it is not an explicit requirement, photos of landscapes and buildings promoted as QI should be appealing. Unfortunately, your dark picture of the beautiful building does not appeal to me either. -- Spurzem 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the Kingdom of Cyprus--ZuppaDiCarlo 22:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be previously assesed as QI Gnangarra 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm not sure I understand. If a user makes an image of a country's flag or an organization's logo, why should that not be eligible for QI?--Peulle 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Same reason as the earlier replies by me. The coat of arms here represented is a reproduction of a blazon, which is a description. It is not based on another person design. In my opinion, this work is really well done both heraldically (except for the Jerusalem Cross on Argent, which is a rather "illegal" thing to do in modern heraldry, but that just history, or arms of inquiry.) and design-wise. Ashoppio 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Zuccarello --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Vado Ligure --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Opposefaithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Garlenda --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Laigueglia --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Andora-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Andora --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question @Gnangarra: isn't there the reference in the image description? It is a faithful reproduction of a blazonry. Not another photograph. The shield is made by me.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This series of comments looks like vandalism. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. Robert Flogaus-Faust FYI. --Plozessor 09:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question What about me? The comment by User:Remontees is not understandable. Wikipedia membership is not required here. User:Poco a poco is an administrator on Commons who contributed lots of great images, so he is certainly a commoner. I don't know whether this vote is the result of a software bug, or whether it was accidentally misplaced or even intentional vandalism and I won't speculate about this. However, I am not entirely sure about this image because a large part of the animal looks rather blurry (on the left side), even though its head looks good. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again somebody who is assessing without being in the condition to do so? I'm a Commoner for over 15 years, uploaded about 30,000 images to the project, 1,000 of them featured, admin,... speechless Poco a poco 13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 14:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The objection seems groundless.--Peulle 09:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Author is the long-time Wiki member and it's quite easy to verify this fact. Your objection looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. --Plozessor 09:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO this image is good for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--Peulle 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Please explain! Poco a poco has been a Wikimedia user since 2008.--ArildV 08:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Something off here, both the supporting and the opposing vote have the same timestamp from Remontees. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hopefully it is just some copy-paste error and and not bad faith. --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The author is a Wikimedia user and the picture is excellent. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support High Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem here. I annulled the intital pro vote as a user can only vote once for each image.--Peulle 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Jakubhal 11:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg

  • Nomination Tower of Banesto building at Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona --MB-one 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, I know the tower is the subject, but that left crop is really distracting, cutting off the banner text like that. --Peulle 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support. I think it's good that only part of the advertising can be seen. I just wish the square and trees were a little brighter. I therefore vote with a weak pro and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)  Support I agree --ArildV 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle: Thanks for the review. I could crop a bit more of the advertising banner, to make it less distracting, if that helps. --MB-one 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, personally I would crop it just to the right of the word "Ultra", to avoid cutting off words.--Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Ann, Mary detail, by Maria Anton Pitscheider Menza --Moroder 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, most of the subbject is out of focus. --Benjism89 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF and motion blur --Jakubhal 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry even at 3 MP, and really blurry and noisy at full resolution. --Plozessor 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again  Neutral. nice lighting, and composition. I find the image noise quite acceptable in this case, and I accept the DOF as a design element, even if it is a bit tight, but it does look blurred to me due to camera shake. --Smial 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: & @Plozessor: There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
O.k., understood (mostly). However, I cannot understand that you cannot find the time to have a maximum of five images per day renamed and possibly the captions added to your description fields. Better file names would be very helpful both to improve the visibility of your files in search engines and (for me) to have them moved to the appropriate quality image galleries ("categorization" via Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted). Almost every file with a too broad file name must be right-clicked and opened to understand where it should be moved to. BTW, it also takes some time for me to upload files with the upload wizard because of the lengthy forms that should be filled in. Commons:File naming has been a proposed guideline since 2009, but it is still tagged as a proposed guideline. Apparently, there has not been sufficient consensus yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. This is about quality, not quantity. Inaccurate file names and rambling image descriptions are common at Scotch Mist. I thought a brief note would be enough to get him to improve this practice. I didn't think it would be that difficult to convince him. QIC is not intended to be a mass-processing operation. Hence the limit of 5 per day. Less is also possible. For QI you can expect more effort in choosing the file name and formulating the image description than any automatic processes. Or you can forego the candidacy.--Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Milseburg: Sorry, my mistake, I thought QI was primarily about the quality of the image and that while indexing information is of course important, it is secondary and therefore it should not be critical whether that information is contained in the File Name, the Caption, the Description and\or the Categories (each of which, or a combination, could potentially be used to aid in moving images to appropriate QI galleries). If the Caption contains information that you consider must also be contained in the File Name and\or Description, then clearly the Caption serves no purpose in this regard, but before I amend the Descriptions, and possibly the File Names, of already nominated images and hundreds of images I had intended to nominate for QI in the future, can you or @Robert Flogaus-Faust: please explain to me when I should enter information in the Caption and what form that information should take?? (PS I would respectfully suggest that my descriptions are not "rambling" and while it is understood that some background information to provide historical context to places visited may not have interest to many, there are some people who have apparently found this information and associated web links helpful!) --Scotch Mist 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, these formalities play a role in a quality image in addition to the technical criteria. In this case, I would suggest the title: "Sigismund's Column and Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw" and the description "Tops of Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle Tower in Warsaw", possibly linked. You should proceed in the same way for further nominations. In the short file descrirption of structured data it's already done but should also done in the summary. Your current approach does not meet QI standards. If adjusting is too time-consuming, simply nominate fewer images. In fact, I think it's less work to reduce title and description to the essentials. Remember that people interested in the images just want to be informed about the content of the images and do not want to go on a long educational journey. The place for that is somewhere else. No such a big thing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Like the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! I could accept this description. However, there should be also a rename request to something like File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden.jpg or possibly File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture.jpg, for example. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

  • Nomination Roof Top Sculpture at Łódź Palace --Scotch Mist 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The head of the statue is too unsharp. --C messier 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - is the image QI level with a more appropriate title such as "Roof Top Wrought Iron Work at Łódź Palace"? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong focus, per C Messier. --Smial 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (otherwise: disturbing background)
  •  Oppose Focus on the handrail, instead of the statue. Unappealing composition with distracting foreground and black shadows -- Basile Morin 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! Could you also have the image renamed, please? Or possibly allow me to file a rename request, e.g. to File:Łódź_2023_13_Poznański_Palace.jpg? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Appreciate you taking the time to review this and other nominations and to present your views on file naming and descriptions, but it seems that while I have changed the description here in line with your wishes, I am still effectively being compelled (as promotion may be declined) to change a naming regime that has seemingly served me well for more than 500 QI promotions by a large number of different QI contributors. I respectfully think it would be more appropriate, for now, to remove your opposition (O) to this promotion (and others where the description has been changed in line with your views) until either proposed naming guidelines (which "are not intended to serve as standalone justification for renaming files") have been agreed or the use of Captions has been fully explained so we can proceed accordingly. [Have not ruled out future naming of files along the lines you have suggested, but while this may mean less work for you it will make the task of uploading large numbers of files more onerous, perhaps not only for me but for many others.] Thank you for considering this request! --Scotch Mist 10:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume that there will be a file naming guideline any time soon, even though there is a proposal on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. However, Commons:File renaming is sufficiently clear and it has the advantage to be a very brief accepted guideline. Does it matter much for the quality of a name whether the city in the file name is Paris or a smaller city elsewhere? I don't think so. I could just submit my rename requests and strike my votes, but it appears that you might not like that at all. BTW, it is usual that the old name redirects to the new one after renaming. In addition, I suppose that your files would be sorted the same way after renaming them according to my suggestions. So while I have no intention to oppose all of your images because of their file names, I won't strike my votes either because I cannot understand why your file naming scheme must remain exactly as it is even if this means that your file names are too broad. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg: , @Moroder: Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A new version has been uploaded, however the CAs are still visible, and the colors wrong. See for example the jacket of the lady at the left making a selfie, it is partly pink and partly grey. Very odd. Due to the contrejour, it is likely that the sliders have been pushed too far in post-treatment. Unfortunately with moving subjects, you can't proceed HDR. There are also heavy distorsions on both sides, and a distracting object looking like a plastic bag at the left -- Basile Morin 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Info Thanks for the review, tried to reduce the green in this picture. I hope it is better now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds on the top left do not meet QI standards. The building appears quite distorted in this representation. And I'm not sure about the file description. --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

  • 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)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7. --Smial 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

  • mié 22 may → jue 30 may
  • jue 23 may → vie 31 may
  • vie 24 may → sáb 01 jun
  • sáb 25 may → dom 02 jun
  • dom 26 may → lun 03 jun
  • lun 27 may → mar 04 jun
  • mar 28 may → mié 05 jun
  • mié 29 may → jue 06 jun
  • jue 30 may → vie 07 jun