Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

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


Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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

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


Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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

Image quality[edit]

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

Composition and lighting[edit]

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

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

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

How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 19 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06:05, 19 April 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


April 19, 2024[edit]

April 18, 2024[edit]

April 17, 2024[edit]

April 16, 2024[edit]

April 15, 2024[edit]

April 14, 2024[edit]

April 13, 2024[edit]

April 12, 2024[edit]

April 11, 2024[edit]

April 10, 2024[edit]

April 9, 2024[edit]

April 8, 2024[edit]

April 7, 2024[edit]

April 5, 2024[edit]

April 4, 2024[edit]

March 31, 2024[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:Seattle_in_April_2024_-_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination University Village, Seattle --Another Believer 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_April_2024_-_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shake Shack, University Village, Seattle --Another Believer 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:3_Lipuväljak_tn,_Otepää.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Street in Otepää, Estonia --Shabashewitz 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good but needs perspective correction. --Plozessor 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) - The second vote from the same user --LexKurochkin 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 22:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor and Sebring12Hrs --LexKurochkin 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:52_Miera_St,_Riga.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden building in Riga, Latvia --Shabashewitz 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 22:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, the image needs perspective correction. The other problem is an obstacle overlapping subject in the center of image. --LexKurochkin 08:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per LexKurochkin, perspective, disturbing objects in foreground, and the actual subject (the "wooden building") is just a small part of the picture with correspondingly low detail. --Plozessor 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Boronti_Lake.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baranti Lake --Rangan Datta Wiki 08:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Go both, lake and cycler. --PetarM 09:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and dust spot should be removed. --Ermell 10:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 13:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Gualeguaychu-Costanera-mar2024-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of waterfront of Gualeguaychu, Argentina --Ezarate 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support OK imo. --ArildV 12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose CA on trees and lamp --Nikride 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough to me. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Yann 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:RioGualeguaychu-Clubpescadores.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Club de pescadores de Gualeguaychú, Argentina --Ezarate 19:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    cw tilt --ArildV 12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    done, thanks!!! --Ezarate 17:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose lacks sharpness and noisy sky --Nikride 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_14e_-_Cimetière_du_Montparnasse_-_Division_3_-_Tombe_de_Marie-Jacques-Saint-Ange_Mallat_de_Bassilan_-_Statue_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue on a grave --Romainbehar 06:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    See COM:FOP#Summary_table; is this statue old enough to be PD? --Grendelkhan 03:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support Dead in 1897, I think it's ok. --Sebring12Hrs 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose That's when the person in the grave died, but that's not necessarily when the sculptor died, and if we're making assumptions about anonymous or unattributed works from then, those assumptions should be in the licensing section. Until that's fixed, this doesn't pass guideline #1. @Romainbehar: please fix. Grendelkhan 08:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment see Category:Pierre Granet. --Smial 12:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't understand the relevance; please explain. Grendelkhan 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 Info Pierre Granet died in 1910. --LexKurochkin 08:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 Question Is he the sculptor? It's not mentioned anywhere on the image page. Grendelkhan 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see any problem here --LexKurochkin 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Common_shelduck_(Tadorna_tadorna)_female_in_flight_Sfax.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) female --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Peulle 08:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, The white is overexposed on the back of the bird. --El Golli Mohamed 14:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support IMO good enough for QI. --XRay 07:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not FP because the bird is facing away from the camera. But easily QI and a great capture. Cmao20 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Cmao20 --Plozessor 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Desert_wheatear_(Oenanthe_deserti_homochroa)_female_Gabes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Desert wheatear (Oenanthe deserti homochroa) female --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and the head is not really in focus. --El Golli Mohamed 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that the head looks rather blurry. In addition, the number of pixels is really low, just above the absolute limit. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Would be fine as the infobox image for a Wikipedia article therefore fine for QI to me. Bird is sharp (perhaps a tiny bit of blur on the head), and stands out well from the background. Cmao20 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 06:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Crested_lark_(Galerida_cristata_carthaginis)_Gabes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crested lark (Galerida cristata carthaginis) --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, overprocessed look at the egdes of the bird. --El Golli Mohamed 14:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO this is good enough for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Clear QI.Cmao20 13:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Really can't understand the opposing vote. --Plozessor 04:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Trafalgar_Square_2011_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The National Gallery in London. --Perituss 11:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp at all, perspective isn't good, CAs everywhere. Not a QI. --Sebring12Hrs 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.# --MB-one 13:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective issues --Milseburg 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Perspective was improved, is it better now? Thanks. --Perituss (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Tsitsikamma_National_Park_(ZA),_Suspension_Bridge_--_2024_--_2063.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Suspension Bridge, Tsitsikamma National Park, Eastern Cape, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really in focus. Sorry. --Ermell 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell--Alexander-93 21:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of DOF, a significant part of the picture is extremely blurred. --Plozessor 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4-size print. You can't get more DOF in such a view without focus stacking. f/13 is already borderline because of diffraction, f/22 would look blurred everywhere, regarding the high resolution. --Smial 12:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:20210715_Ναός_Αγίας_Παρασκευής,_Απείρανθος_7413.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ναός Αγίας Παρασκευής, Απείρανθος (by C messier) --Sebring12Hrs 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration on trees --Ezarate 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Unable to spot CA on trees, good picture. --Plozessor 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 06:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I put a note over the CA Ezarate 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed there are few purple pixels, so you're not wrong saying that there is CA, but IMO it's not enough to deny QI status.
  •  Support cant note any CA. --PetarM 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Panterpe_insignis_in_Costa_Rica_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fiery-throated hummingbird (Panterpe insignis), Costa Rica --Bgag 00:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose quite blurred --Charlesjsharp 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Plozessor 05:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now.  Neutral What is all that white powder on the bird and the white lines in the background? This was taken at 1/1000 second. If these lines are real, they must have fallen very quickly. Or are these some kind of artifacts from oversharpening? In addition, there appear to be quite a lot of dust spots, e.g. in the background and on the brown, blurry parts of the wing. Otherwise, this looks a bit borderline for QI because of the blurry parts, but still ok for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info It was raining. --Bgag 10:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. I changed my vote to neutral. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Makalali_Game_Reserve_(ZA),_Eule_--_2024_--_1305.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Owl at night in Makalali Game Reserve (Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve), Maruleng, Limpopo, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colours need attention --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. WB changed, the bird is more white now. --XRay 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange color bandings at the birds feet.--Ermell 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Knysna_(ZA),_Knysna_River,_Ufer_--_2024_--_2427.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Banks of the Knysna River, Knysna, Western Cape, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the picture is blurred --Bgag 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is blurred. Charlesjsharp 07:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support some very small remains of CA, and somewhat soft, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 12:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Just sharpness, structure and CAs improved a little bit. --XRay 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 13:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nice composition, but sorry, per others.--Alexander-93 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Yann. --SHB2000 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Sorry --LexKurochkin 08:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Thu 11 Apr → Fri 19 Apr
  • Fri 12 Apr → Sat 20 Apr
  • Sat 13 Apr → Sun 21 Apr
  • Sun 14 Apr → Mon 22 Apr
  • Mon 15 Apr → Tue 23 Apr
  • Tue 16 Apr → Wed 24 Apr
  • Wed 17 Apr → Thu 25 Apr
  • Thu 18 Apr → Fri 26 Apr
  • Fri 19 Apr → Sat 27 Apr