Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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]

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]

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 November 2023.
  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 November 2023.
  • 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 November 01 2023 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]] 09:39, 1 November 2023 (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


November 1, 2023[edit]

October 31, 2023[edit]

October 30, 2023[edit]

October 29, 2023[edit]

October 28, 2023[edit]

October 27, 2023[edit]

October 26, 2023[edit]

October 25, 2023[edit]

October 24, 2023[edit]

October 23, 2023[edit]

October 22, 2023[edit]

October 21, 2023[edit]

October 20, 2023[edit]

October 19, 2023[edit]

October 18, 2023[edit]

October 17, 2023[edit]

October 16, 2023[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:ANA_Cargo,_Frankfurt_am_Main_(P1090462).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boeing 777F of ANA Cargo taking off from runway 25C of Frankfurt Airport --MB-one 11:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality -- Spurzem 12:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Low detail even in thumbnail size. --Kallerna 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Provin_73_rue_nationale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Enclosure, Rue Nationale 73, in Provin, France --Velvet 06:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Looks a bit overcontrasted, what do others think? --Plozessor 17:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 00:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Zicht_op_de_Piz_S-chalambert_vanuit_Val_Sinestra_21-09-2023._(d.j.b)_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dawn around the Piz S-chalambert (View from Val Sinestra at ~7.21 am)
    --Famberhorst 06:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 06:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The sky is nice, but the main subject is very noisy. --Kallerna 06:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Noise reduced. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose low detail. Tomer T 09:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Wierum_(Noardeast-Fryslân),_10-07-2023._(d.j.b)_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wierum (Northeast-Fryslân), View of the Wadden Sea from the seawall. (Breakwaters and mud flats.)
    --Famberhorst 06:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 06:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Noisy even at thumbnail size. --Kallerna 06:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Noise reduced. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Thunderstorm_Skopje.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Thunderstorm approaching Skopje, North Macedonia. --Kallerna 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Sharp enough in these atmospheric conditions, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Houses not sharp enough. --Palauenc05 11:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful atmosphere but not so sharp as it should be -- Spurzem 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:20230518_St._Jakob_Wasserburg_am_Inn_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A fountain with statue from 1988 outside the church St. Jakob in Wasserburg am Inn --FlocciNivis 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The white panel on left spoils the composition. A portrait crop of the statue alone will be better IMO --Tagooty 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Agree with Tagooty. Either crop the statue alone, or just cut off the white panel (so that the statue would be on the left side of the remaining image), and it would be really good. --Plozessor 10:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor composition (disturbing panel) --Plozessor 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Actually, only the technical quality is assessed here at QI; at FP, the composition is important. --Ermell 20:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I disagree. The header of this page ("Quality image candidates") says:
Composition and lighting: The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting.
And at least for my taste, that panel is distracting. --Plozessor 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The panel may be incongruous, but it doesn't ruin the composition, anyway. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Plozessor. Move in tighter and get a clean image of the statue. Alternative, crop tightly if there is sufficient resolution. --GRDN711 14:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No composition. --Smial 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable composition; the wall on the left is very annoying. I would have photographed the statue with its base in portrait format or cropped the existing image to portrait format and brightened the statue a little. Then it would be a nice picture and maybe also a QI. -- Spurzem 09:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Please look at the cropped version. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I would definitely support the cropped version as a QI! --Plozessor (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Mt._Parnassus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Parnassus. By User:Chavakismanolis --L'OrfeoGreco 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Colours seem unnatural and oversaturated to me, let's discuss. --BigDom 14:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large blurred foreground. --Tagooty 05:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry foreground and oversaturated. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment (nominator) I was not as acquainted with the procedure's rules as I should have been before nominating this one. I withdraw the nomination, you can fail it, I see all the reasons why and agree with the voters' rationale. L'OrfeoGreco 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Red_Telephone_Box_in_Etampes_(Essonne).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red Telephone Box in Etampes (Essonne,France) -- Florent Abel 23:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Quite unnatural perspective, was that intentional? Should be easy to fix, then it would be a really good picture. --Plozessor 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    It is not easy to fix perfectly, but I tried to do it a bit. We should ask whether it is okay now. -- Spurzem 19:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a supporting vote or an opposing vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk)
  •  Oppose --Smial 21:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too weird-looking, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 23:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan. --LexKurochkin 08:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Hallo Robert Flogaus-Faust, where is the problem? I was amazed that this image was featured for QI and tried to improve it a bit. The result was not good or hardly better than the original. So I asked what others think about it. Best regards -- Spurzem 09:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
     Info My comment was just a reminder of Commons:Quality_images_candidates#How_to_review. These are the sentences: "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." --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:025_Wild_European_bee-eater_in_flight_at_Pfyn-Finges_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination European bee-eater in flight at Pfyn-Finges --Giles Laurent 17:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Lacking sharpness and detail. --Plozessor 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review Plozessor. I just uploaded a new sharper version of the file. --Giles Laurent 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thx, still not convinced though. Let's hear others. --Plozessor 06:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO a bit soft, even though this is a beautiful and difficult photo. Please do not move to CR without a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with you, but IMHO it's soft and good (enough). --Terragio67 10:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support both versions. --Smial 21:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Bolzplatz,_Rendsburg_(LRM_20200411_121356).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Closed-off football field during the Covid-19 pandemic in Rendsburg --MB-one 18:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Low detail, massive NR applied --Plozessor 18:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe too strong NR, but still enough fine detail. Please discuss. --C messier 15:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Plozessor: Thanks for the review. I revised the NR. Hope it's better now. --MB-one 11:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Now it's good! --Plozessor 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks good. Maybe the sky color is a bit unusual? -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Koleje_Dolnoslaskie,_Zgorzelec_(LRM_20220308_125037).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 45WE and 31WE of Koleje Dolnoslaskie at Zgorzelec station --MB-one 10:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 12:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Digital displays not readable. --Smial 19:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Technical quality is fine (minimal colour noise in the shadows, can be improved but ok for QI). Digital dispalys is not readable, but It's not the photographer's fault.--ArildV 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for a smartphone photo. Unfair IMO to criticise the photographer for the way LED displays work. BigDom 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per BigDom --Plozessor 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per BigDom and ArildV. -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I find it a bit... strange to accuse people of unfairness when criticising an obvious technical flaw. You can photograph such displays legibly. File:Unna Bahnhofsbereich neuer Busbahnhof Infosaeule IMGP7240 wp.jpg --Smial 21:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Church_of_Our_Lady_of_Grace_Hoboken_November_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Our Lady of Grace, Hoboken. --King of Hearts 07:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I see very disburbing shadows so that it is no QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Catch-22 for the photographer I suppose. To get nice light from this direction, the building they are standing on is obviously going to cast some shade, but the shadow doesn't encroach onto the church itself, which is well captured IMO. BigDom 15:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and the shadows don't disturb me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Calle_Redin_in_Pamplona_(4).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Calle Redín – historic old town of Pamplona, Navarre, Spain. --Tournasol7 04:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Too dark. --Plozessor 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • It was very cloudy day, it was dark in reality.--Tournasol7 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. In my opinion the fact that it was a dark, cloudy day is no excuse for presenting a photo that is too dark. ;-) But with a little, hopefully permissible, editing, the image can be made more friendly. Now I think it's perfect: very good composition, perfect sharpness and pleasant colors. What more are we asking for a QI? -- Spurzem 18:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, new version is good! --Plozessor 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality with better lighting for this new version. --Giles Laurent 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Calle_Dormitaleria_in_Pamplona_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Calle Dormitalería in Pamplona, Navarre, Spain. --Tournasol7 04:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too dark. --Plozessor 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • It was very cloudy day, it was dark in reality.--Tournasol7 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. In the meantime it seems to have cleared up a bit and the dark alley is brighter. Good and beautiful picture as I think -- Spurzem 18:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, new version is good. --Plozessor 05:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. I think the original version was also OK. -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Holy_Innocents_Hoboken_November_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Holy Innocents and view of Hoboken skyline to the north. --King of Hearts 11:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI of the church in my eyes, I can hardly see it --Poco a poco 18:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a QI of a view, even if it might not be a good VI of the church because trees block our view of some of it. -- Ikan Kekek 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I've edited the file description to more accurately describe what is actually shown in the image. --King of Hearts 00:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image quality. I guess the "composition" quality is somehow subjective; for me it's ok - the picture shows the church and its surroundings. --Plozessor 05:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It may be very difficult to photograph this church favorably, but a better photo than this should be possible. The lighting is extremely poor, making it difficult to see the church. For me it is not a quality image. - Spurzem 09:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too much of the church is obstructed. --Palauenc05 11:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI in my eyes.--Ermell 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Tue 24 Oct → Wed 01 Nov
  • Wed 25 Oct → Thu 02 Nov
  • Thu 26 Oct → Fri 03 Nov
  • Fri 27 Oct → Sat 04 Nov
  • Sat 28 Oct → Sun 05 Nov
  • Sun 29 Oct → Mon 06 Nov
  • Mon 30 Oct → Tue 07 Nov
  • Tue 31 Oct → Wed 08 Nov
  • Wed 01 Nov → Thu 09 Nov