Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 18 2020 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Shortcut: COM:QIC/L

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 10:02, 18 March 2020 (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

March 18, 2020[edit]

March 17, 2020[edit]

March 16, 2020[edit]

March 15, 2020[edit]

March 14, 2020[edit]

March 13, 2020[edit]

March 12, 2020[edit]

March 11, 2020[edit]

March 10, 2020[edit]

March 9, 2020[edit]

March 8, 2020[edit]

March 7, 2020[edit]

March 5, 2020[edit]

March 4, 2020[edit]

March 3, 2020[edit]

February 29, 2020[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Shwedagon_Zedi_Daw_Yangon_5.jpg[edit]

Shwedagon Zedi Daw Yangon 5.jpg

  • Nomination Shwedagon pagoda, Yangon. --Kallerna 16:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good one, but the plattform down disturbs the composition, I suggest a crop --PantheraLeo1359531 15:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The platform is IMO important, would not like to crop it out. Let's discuss. --Kallerna 06:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could a less tight crop help here showing the whole platform? --Milseburg 07:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 06:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Kavant_Fair_256.jpg[edit]

Kavant Fair 256.jpg

  • Nomination Rathwa tribe during Kavant fair.--Vijay Barot 16:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems like the description contains copyrighted text. Please explain that or fix it --Podzemnik 01:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Description of the photographs is simplified now. And thanks to pointed out this. I will keep in mind in future.--Vijay Barot 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Dimitris_Nikolaou_&_Adam_Hložek,_U21_CZE-GRE_2019-10-10.jpg[edit]

Dimitris Nikolaou & Adam Hložek, U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpg

  • Nomination Dimitris Nikolaou & Adam Hložek in an internatinoal association football match of European Under-21 Championship Qualifying Round between the Czech Republic and Greece, Městský stadion Karviná --T.Bednarz 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One player cut in half while there is room on the right ... that's not a QI composition, sorry. Difficult shot, but still. --Peulle 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Good quality and fine compo. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. Too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 09:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:3671_Ethiopie_ethnie_Nyangatom.JPG[edit]

3671 Ethiopie ethnie Nyangatom.JPG

  • Nomination Ethiopie, jeune fille nyangatomI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Yves Picq --Basile Morin 04:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose inappropriate, would this be OK if the girl was white? --Charlesjsharp 12:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • my point Basile is that there is no way anyone would submit a topless photo of a pubescent white girl. So why do so with a girl of colour? Charlesjsharp 09:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think she could be 20. How would anyone except perhaps M. Picq know? -- Ikan Kekek 09:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not only she seems to be mother (with her child visible on the picture), but also modesty is a cultural notion. Nudity (Wikipedia): "In sub-Saharan Africa, full nudity or nudity below the waist is the norm among some ethnic and family groups". This similar image arrived 5th at the Picture of the year. I don't think this one will become FP, but please read above, the section "Evaluating images": "the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator". -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think she is over 15 years old and a mother. The child may be her brother and her own mother is currently hairdressing her. Another culture. If it doesn't cause offend there, we shouldn't get upset either. I don´t know. So I don't dare to judge The quality is good. --Milseburg 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, good quality -- Spurzem 22:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:OutDoor_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A9856).jpg[edit]

OutDoor 2018, Friedrichshafen (1X7A9856).jpg

  • Nomination Mannquin in modern style loden jacket, OutDoor 2018 --MB-one 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a loden jacket --Charlesjsharp 17:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a traditional style but certainly made out of loden cloth. --MB-one (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image looks fine to me, but according to the manufacturer's website this appears to be a jacket with a pure cotton outer fabric (and a 100% polyester mesh lining), "which complements wonderfully with our loden clothing". No mention of wool being used in this model of garment, though it's possible that I've just found something which looks exactly alike but is from a different range. On balance, I suspect you ought to modify the description (and the categories) to remove the mention of loden. --Bobulous 19:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 11:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Musikkpaviljongen,_Bergen,_Noruega,_2019-09-08,_DD_54.jpg[edit]

Musikkpaviljongen, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 54.jpg

  • Nomination Musikkpaviljongen, Bergen, Norway --Poco a poco 10:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd crop this to remove the guy in sunglasses who's frozen in a very odd pose. --Bobulous 12:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This place is very crowded and that would be a major crop for a minor issue IMHO, can you please have a second opinion? --Poco a poco 18:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg mild support as the pavilion is the main subject and is well captured. I understand the criticism, though; the man is on the move and gives you motion blur, which is a bit annoying. We have seen declines made on similar issues before, so I guess a crop would be nice. What counts against it is that a right crop here is impossible due to the crowd of people, and having lived in Bergen, I would also say that the scenery around the structure is part of the whole.--Peulle 10:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm not much bothered by any of the people. Good photo, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Peulle and Ikan. Personally, I would try not to crop, but to clone out the guy with sunglasses; if that works, good, else keep the photo as it is. --Aristeas 09:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 09:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_nectaring_of_Ixias_pyrene_(Linnaeus,_1764)_–_Yellow_Orange-tip_(Female)_WLB-NEI_DSC_4310.jpg[edit]

Open wing nectaring of Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) – Yellow Orange-tip (Female) WLB-NEI DSC 4310.jpg

  • Nomination Open wing nectaring of Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) – Yellow Orange-tip (Female) (by Rahulbiswas29) --Atudu 08:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-processed (looks like highlights reduced too much) --Charlesjsharp 09:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-processed, possibly by reducing highlights too much --Charlesjsharp 09:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_nectaring_of_Ixias_pyrene_(Linnaeus,_1764)_–_Yellow_Orange-tip_(Female)WLB-NEI_DSC_4318.jpg[edit]

Close wing nectaring of Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) – Yellow Orange-tip (Female)WLB-NEI DSC 4318.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing nectaring of Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) – Yellow Orange-tip (Female)(by Rahulbiswas29) --Atudu 08:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-processed, colours artifical --Charlesjsharp 09:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Café_sur_un_vol_Ethiopian_airlines.jpg[edit]

Café sur un vol Ethiopian airlines.jpg

  • Nomination Café et sucre sur un vol Ethiopian airlines. --Fawaz.tairou 20:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Peulle 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - JPG artifacts, soft, nothing much in focus etc. --Podzemnik 05:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good enough as a picture of a cup of coffee, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not properly categorized. --Gyrostat 12:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - You're right. I've temporarily withdrawn my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 23:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - fixed the categories --Kritzolina 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Restored supporting vote, though I respect Smial's remarks and we'll see whether they win the day. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Random composition, wide angle perspective inappropriate, bad lighting. Sorry. --Smial 02:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose - I don't have a problem with the composition, but it seems strange to have the focus on the branding alone, far down the subject. Rhododendrites 22:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Crete,_Malia_beach_2019_g,_with_lifeguard_tower.jpg[edit]

Crete, Malia beach 2019 g, with lifeguard tower.jpg

  • Nomination Life guard tower at Malia Beach in Crete. --Cayambe 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Excellent please add geolocation --Wilfredor 21:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice scene but to my eye it looks like it needs to be rotated two or three degrees clockwise. --Bobulous 21:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Requesting discussion of need for rotation. --Bobulous 18:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. It is quite hard to tell what is upright in such a motif, but the big antenna/mast at the right horizon confirms that we need some rotation. @Cayambe: Could you try to rotate this (nice!) photo a bit, and/or to apply some perspective correction? In addition, geolocation would be nice. --Aristeas 10:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's difficult to see, since the wooden structure itself might be leaning, but judging from the mobile mast in the right rear, I'd agree that the image appears a little bit tilted.--Peulle 10:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being late. I had fixed the verticals on the panels on the tower. Tomorrow, Monday, I'll try out some rotation/perspective correction based on the antenna at the far right. --Cayambe 16:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Verticals at the right side are now fixed, see the big antenna in the far right. The wooden box fixed to the right side of the tower is leaning to the left as is the right support of the tower... in consequence the infopanel supported by the signpost is 'naturally' leaning to the left. Please also have a look at the (very faint) masts in the far distance at left. I really think that this now 'correctly' displays the verticals. Geotag added. Regards, --Cayambe 17:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The horizon is OK now. --T.Bednarz 12:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ditto. Thank you very much for the continued work on this image ;–). --Aristeas 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:P-8_hardpoint,_ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A5416)_(cropped).jpg[edit]

P-8 hardpoint, ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5416) (cropped).jpg

  • Nomination hardpoint of a Boeing P-8 Poseidon, ILA 2018 --MB-one 10:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Please need cut this picture to center in the main subject, severals elements distracting --Wilfredor 21:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New crop. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 12:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. much better --Wilfredor 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Matsumoto_Matsumoto-jo_bei_Nacht_12.jpg[edit]

Matsumoto Matsumoto-jo bei Nacht 12.jpg

  • Nomination perfectly catched --Zairon 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image detail is far too soft. You've got a good eye for composition, Zairon, but your old camera isn't doing you justice. --Bobulous 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. I think (my personal opinion) the image is of good quality. --Junior Jumper 05:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A really nice composition, but IMO not sharp enough. There are minor CAs too. --XRay 13:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me -- Spurzem 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI level. --A.Savin 21:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, sorry.--Peulle 10:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice image, but per Bobulous. Rhododendrites 22:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 09:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 10 Mar → Wed 18 Mar
Wed 11 Mar → Thu 19 Mar
Thu 12 Mar → Fri 20 Mar
Fri 13 Mar → Sat 21 Mar
Sat 14 Mar → Sun 22 Mar
Sun 15 Mar → Mon 23 Mar
Mon 16 Mar → Tue 24 Mar
Tue 17 Mar → Wed 25 Mar
Wed 18 Mar → Thu 26 Mar