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]] 08:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 2, 2024

September 1, 2024

August 31, 2024

August 30, 2024

August 29, 2024

August 28, 2024

August 27, 2024

August 26, 2024

August 25, 2024

August 24, 2024

August 23, 2024

August 22, 2024

August 21, 2024

August 20, 2024

August 19, 2024

August 18, 2024

August 17, 2024

August 11, 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}} oder {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add   Oppose and   Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



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

 

  • Nomination Mating pair of Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775) - Common Cerulean. By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 14:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --AuHaidhausen 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Oversharpened, blurry/noisy in 100 %. --Аныл Озташ 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

 

  • Nomination Wat Sra Kesh, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --I.Mahesh 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose LoD --Аныл Озташ 01:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

 

  • Nomination Wat Chaiyo Varavihāra, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --I.Mahesh 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose LoD --Аныл Озташ 01:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    What does that mean? --A.Savin 07:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI, I think --A.Savin 07:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 07:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Mont_St_Michel_–_ramparts_(1).jpg

 

  • Nomination North Tower (Tour du Nord) of Mont-Saint-Michel ramparts. --Lynx1211 06:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    only sharp at the front, is there anything else possible? --Georgfotoart 17:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    I downscaled it again and put more attention to sharpness. Looks OK now? --Lynx1211 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. it couldn't be better --Georgfotoart 20:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Volta,_Ada_East_(P1090924).jpg

 

  • Nomination Volta River Delta in East Ada, Ghana --MB-one 21:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Detai is not good here, too much denoising? --Poco a poco 07:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    Tweaked the detail. Should be better now --MB-one 06:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's indeed better, borderline though. What you Need to fix here is the vignetting. Then I'd promote. --Poco a poco 19:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Bonaguil_et_son_village.jpg

 

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

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

 

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

File:Казахстан,_Караойский_заказник,_солерос.jpg

 

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

File:Durga_Pooja_at_Bhopal_(12).jpg

 

  • Nomination Durga Puja in at Bhopal Madhya PradeshI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --C messier 20:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose WB is off, lacks detail --Poco a poco 20:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The white balance isn't an issue here; the artist intentionally used yellow light to highlight the golden glow on the statue's face. -- Suyash.dwivedi 07:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No issue with WB, the picture might reflect the real light conditions there, but DoF is not enough / the sharp area is too small. Should have used higher f-number so that at least the majority of the face would be sharp. --Plozessor 15:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Palais_Walderdorff_Trier_August_2024.jpg

 

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

File:Panthera_uncia,_Krefeld_-_0284+91.jpg

 

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

File:Milchstraße über dem Hochkalter und Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 1018-50.jpg

 

  • Nomination Milky way over the Watzmann mountain in Berchtesgadener Land (Germany) --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Wrong title. Watzmann is not in the image, but the Hochkalter. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Erledigt Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. --Аныл Озташ 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok. No reason to oppose for me left. --Milseburg 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

 

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

File:Hochkalter vom Hintersee, Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (Berchtesgadener Land) - 0541.jpg

 

  • Nomination View from the Malerwinkel at Hintersee near Ramsau (Berchtesgadener Land, Germany) to the Watzmann and the Hochkalter massif - shot from the water --Аныл Озташ 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Title is wrong. Watzmann is not in the image, but the Hochkalter. Object location have to be fixed too. --Milseburg 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Erledigt Many thanks for the tip! File name and description as well as object location have been corrected. --Anil Ö. (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Kommentar I would support if the discrepancy-note concerning the coordinates is gone.--Milseburg 15:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Already gone. --Аныл Озташ 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  Support Ok now in my eyes. --Milseburg 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Carla_Simón_Winner_of_the_Golden_Bear_for_Best_Film_2022_Nr_5.JPG

 

  • Nomination Carla Simón Winner of the Golden Bear for Best Film at Berlinale 2022. By User:Elena Ternovaja --Seewolf 20:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose the shadows on the face ruins picture, sorry --Ezarate 23:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO it is OK for QI. Please discuss. --C messier 19:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support. Great, atmospheric, lively portrait with available light. Unavoidable image noise perfectly controlled, focus exactly where it should be. --Smial 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial. --Plozessor 17:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Aleja_Gwiazd_in_Kraków_03.jpg

 

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

File:Seattle_in_August_2024_-_067.jpg

 

  • Nomination University Bridge, Seattle --Another Believer 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Level of detail too low due to over processing. --Augustgeyler 05:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose perspective, strong banding in the sky, overprocessed. --Smial 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Smial. --Plozessor 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see the serious mistakes, so for me QI. On the other hand, I had problems with the photo of the cyclists, who were so tiny that they were barely recognizable among the blurry surroundings. -- Spurzem 21:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Plozessor. --Аныл Озташ 21:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Аныл Озташ 21:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

File:149_New_Montgomery_roof_view_(Wikimedia_Foundation)_2016_5.jpg

 

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

File:Breakway_in_Simacourbe_climb_of_Tour_de_France_2024_stage_13.jpg

 

  • Nomination Breakway in Simacourbe climb of Tour de France 2024 stage 13 --Shougissime 19:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose You have to look too closely to see where the tiny sharp main object is. Sorry -- Spurzem 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Kommentar that's the aim of the picture to look closely on the main topic of the picture. the breakway is small, 2 guys but all around you have the crowd, race vehicle, ambiance and scenery of what is the Tour de France. Main topic is in the focus and other elements are not in DOF but part of the picture because those elements contribute to the race. Moreover, this picture is already used on some wiki pages (not integrated by myself). --Shougissime 15:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Kommentar Therefore the left and right parts and some at top and bottom would have to be cut out to work as composition for this goal. --Augustgeyler 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree here. Great sport photo and good technical quality and focus. A somewhat tighter crop is possible but not required imo. The context around the cyclists (the crowd, the road, the spectators, the billboards) is mostly interesting and give a more raw (as opposed to one picture-perfect newspaper images) image of the competition. I really like the images as it is.--ArildV (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per ArildV. --Plozessor 07:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As stated above. There is a tighter crop needed to get this composition working. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but per Spurzem --Jakubhal 00:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per ArildV. The image composition is somewhat unusual, but I have no technically justifiable objections. ..Smial 11:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Kommentar Thanks for support. Picture is out of a standard frame, I don't want to crop a lot because the picture will lose its interest. Yes, there is a lot a informations but I think it illustrate very well what is Tour de France, sponsors, lots of vehicles, fans on the side of the road, a breakway in a climb and peloton chasing breakway without mercy. --Shougissime 17:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)