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 October 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 October 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 October 16 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

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]] 09:50, 16 October 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


October 16, 2023[edit]

October 15, 2023[edit]

October 14, 2023[edit]

October 13, 2023[edit]

October 12, 2023[edit]

October 11, 2023[edit]

October 10, 2023[edit]

October 9, 2023[edit]

October 8, 2023[edit]

October 7, 2023[edit]

October 6, 2023[edit]

October 5, 2023[edit]

October 4, 2023[edit]

October 3, 2023[edit]

October 2, 2023[edit]

October 1, 2023[edit]

September 28, 2023[edit]

September 25, 2023[edit]

September 22, 2023[edit]

September 21, 2023[edit]

September 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:Catedral_de_la_Inmaculada_Concepción,_Manila,_Filipinas,_2023-08-26,_DD_21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral, Manila, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Unfortunately the top of the left tower looks seriously distorted. --AFBorchert 14:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    @AFBorchert: I've upladed a new version Poco a poco 20:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC). The new version is overall significantly better. I understand that you wanted to take the challenging 16 mm wide angle shot to avoid the monumental statue in front of the cathedral. But there are limits what perspective correction can do and I still think that the left tower, while improved, is still unfortunately distorted. Another problem is that the tower is significantly taller than the roof of the nave and at the distance the correction suggests the tower should be much taller as it shows. Your photo is certainly unique within the set of photos we have from the main façade and thereby a valuable addition. But overall I still think that the amount of perspective correction with its severe consequences for the tower is beyond the criteria for quality images. --AFBorchert 04:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for your detailed feedback, I'm curious what others say, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 06:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:York_Minster_2015_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination York Minster, York --Mike Peel 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    There is CA on the top of the tower, that needs to be removed --FlocciNivis 06:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    @FlocciNivis: Thanks for the review, tweaked version uploaded, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    It is better, but I think the CA is still visible and I'm not certain in general, if this is a QI. If this is important to you, maybe submit it to consenual review --FlocciNivis 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the left crop is unfortunate as it crosses right through the tracery of a window and the belfry as main subject of attention is out of the DOF, f/8 is insufficient here. --AFBorchert 05:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:View_of_Estella-Lizarra_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Estella-Lizarra (seen from Zalatambor Castle), Navarre, Spain. --Tournasol7 04:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment tree top left distracts --Charlesjsharp 09:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pole bottom right distracts.--Milseburg 10:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 05:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Patio_de_la_iglesia_de_San_Agustín,_Manila,_Filipinas,_2023-08-27,_DD_115.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination San Agustin Church courtyard, Manila, Philippines --Poco a poco 16:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The depth of field is lacking with the consequence that many important elements of the image are not sharp at the full resolution. I think that a tripod is required under these circumstances to achieve a quality shot. --AFBorchert 09:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree, big file, detail level good IMHO, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 20:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC).
      • Ok but I wonder why is the fountain and the vegetation around it much more crisp than the façade of the building which appears to be the main subject? And at f/10 this is in my opinion unfortunate for the façade left and right of the centre and the roof. --AFBorchert 04:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
        • I focused on the fountain, so that's why it's like this. And that's consistent with the subject, which is the courtyard not the wall. I also consider that DoF is pretty good and the wall has an acceptable sharpness anyhow. Poco a poco 06:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 05:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Mont de Chemun Sasplat.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside Crucifix --Moroder 13:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the main object is not sharp enough, a larger diafragma and a better focus would have been much better --Michielverbeek 05:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The way cross as the main motif is significantly less sharp than the background. It would be okay the other way around, but not like this. --Milseburg 09:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me -- Spurzem 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat low DOF, but in normal viewing size by far sharp enough. --Smial 00:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Smial: Review size should not be a reduced preview, but the full resolution. Otherwise, the author wouldn't have had to bother taking at high resolution, which is impressive here. --Milseburg 05:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Michielverbeek here. The focus is on the background but not on the main object. --AFBorchert 05:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with all the opposes above on the facts, but those who supply images at an absurdly high resolution should not be penalized for doing so. Looks just fine at a normal resolution. --King of Hearts 11:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 11:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Wachten_op_hoog_water_(beeld_van_Jan_Ketelaar)_14-08-2023._(actm.)_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A thin woman looks out to sea.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose incorrect descrpition --Charlesjsharp 09:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    *✓ Done. description adjusted. Thank you for your attention.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --AFBorchert 05:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 07:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 10:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sand_Dunes_sa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A dune is a landform --Meshari Alawfi 01:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A better filename, description, location and categorization is necessary. --XRay 09:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Looks like everything ok now. --Nino Verde 14:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, it isn't. Categories for example are very common. Categories are not tags. --XRay 04:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Categories fixed by other users. So it's acceptable now. --XRay 07:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Moroder 13:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I am sorry, but the categories are indeed very general. Subcategories should be used instead. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Meshari Alawfi: Your photograph is good for QI and the issues are very easy to fix. So please fix description and categories. --XRay 04:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not look for any categories but for the picture and I see a good and interesting one. -- Spurzem 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Beautiful and could be worth a COM:FPC nomination. However, the others are right that it should have narrower categories, such as Category:Deserts of Saudi Arabia. Meshari, could you please do a little bit of searching to see what the more detailed subcategories for your other categories are? -- Ikan Kekek 03:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 18:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment In addition to the description that explains what a dune is (as if Commons were Wikipedia), there are captions that don't explain what can be seen here, but also provide a kind of a definition of dunes. And of course, there is inappropriate categorization, which means cluttering categories very high up the category tree. Unfortunately, quite a lot of voters just don't care at all about issues that are not about photographic quality, even though the requirements for proper categorization and an accurate description are also parts of the guidelines, see Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Of course, I thought about just fixing the issues before opposing this beautiful photograph, but I cannot correct the part that is in Arabic language. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now even though it is an excellent shot from the technical point of view. - I have replaced the generic dunes and sand categorizations with the respective Saudi Arabian version of it- Happy to support this nomination once the description has been modified to meet QI guidelines (I am unable to do that, same as RFF) --Virtual-Pano 23:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 Support now that all conditions of the nomination have been met --Virtual-Pano (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support This is good quality. But the description should indeed describe where this has been photographed. --AFBorchert 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Meshari Alawfi: If you nominate an image, please have a look to the issues. Cooperation is part of the nomination. --XRay 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Virtual-Pano (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Olympus_μ_mju_II_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Olympus μ mju II - grey, renominated, most issues have been addressed. --多多123 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Question What's the transparent stuff up left (marked)? --MB-one 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    @MB-one: Second left is the shutter, I believe the left switch is to lock in place the photograph tape. --多多123 10:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support If it's part of the camera, good quality --MB-one 17:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose I think, here must be applied antidust filter or manual editing for hide a real dust on the object. --Kirill Borisenko 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid there is still too much noise. This doesn't look good at full resolution. --AFBorchert 05:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Lentil_soup,_Berlin_(LRM_20210925_125528).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lentil soup, served in a DB Premium Lounge --MB-one 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 04:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's sufficiently sharp IMO on the focus pane. Please discuss. --MB-one 15:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If I look at the picture from the point of view of "food photography", it can't be a QI at all, because it has an unmotivated focus, unfavorable lighting and a horrible background. As a documentary snapshot one could let it pass, but for that the optical reference to the location is missing. --Smial 10:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough to me, and I'm quite OK with a stark, documentary style. -- Ikan Kekek 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:0915_NOR_Hammerfest_Arctic_Princess_V-P.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hammerfest roads --Virtual-Pano 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Too shallow DoF for this composition IMO. Only the rock on the right is in focus. --MB-one 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The rock to the right is several hundred metres away. With 24 mm and f8 on a full frame sensor objects even further away should be well inside DoF. --Virtual-Pano 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4 print, but I would recommend reducing both noise reduction and post sharpening. --Smial 10:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info completly reprocessed version uploaded --Virtual-Pano 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support much better now. --MB-one (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization lines in the sky. Oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thanks for pointing out the flaw that missed my attention - I have started from scratch and uploaded a new version --Virtual-Pano (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Jakob_im_Rosental_Maria_Elend_Schalenstein_26092023_4498.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Offering table at the park north of the pilgrimage church Maria Elend, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Blurry --Plozessor 03:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. IMO sharp and good enough. --XRay 03:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @XRay: Thanks for your review. I reduced the noise and uploaded a new version. —- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose slightly out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support By far sharp enough regarding the resolution. Printable to A3 size or even bigger. --Smial 23:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough given that it is a static subject. --Tagooty 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sharp enough for a QI --Michielverbeek 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, some blown whites. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, though I don't really care about the blown areas; it's just not sharp enough to seem of high quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 03:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίας_Σοφίας,_Μονεμβασιά_0591.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The west facade of the church of Agia Sofia in Monemvasia. --C messier 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose High noise, person in the door --Plozessor 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    This isn't FP for the person in the portal to be an issue. Please discuss. --C messier 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support As long as we are fiddling around with 8-bit JPGs here, a low noise component is always better than merciless denoising, which often enough leads to LEGO plastic-like surfaces and/or posterization. --Smial 23:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 12:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. Noise is quite subtle and acceptable for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 03:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --AFBorchert 06:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 03:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Sun 08 Oct → Mon 16 Oct
  • Mon 09 Oct → Tue 17 Oct
  • Tue 10 Oct → Wed 18 Oct
  • Wed 11 Oct → Thu 19 Oct
  • Thu 12 Oct → Fri 20 Oct
  • Fri 13 Oct → Sat 21 Oct
  • Sat 14 Oct → Sun 22 Oct
  • Sun 15 Oct → Mon 23 Oct
  • Mon 16 Oct → Tue 24 Oct