Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 June 2025.
  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 June 2025.
  • 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 June 02 2025 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]] 11:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).

June 2, 2025

[edit]

June 1, 2025

[edit]

May 31, 2025

[edit]

May 30, 2025

[edit]

May 29, 2025

[edit]

May 28, 2025

[edit]

May 27, 2025

[edit]

May 26, 2025

[edit]

May 25, 2025

[edit]

May 24, 2025

[edit]

May 23, 2025

[edit]

May 22, 2025

[edit]

May 21, 2025

[edit]

May 20, 2025

[edit]

May 19, 2025

[edit]

May 18, 2025

[edit]

May 17, 2025

[edit]

May 16, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 2025

[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:Lar_National_Park_by_HADI_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lar National Park, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 00:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't get your opinion. It is higher than needed for QI, where is the problem? --Lvova 00:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Commons:Image guidelines If you decide to submit the image at its maximum size, be sure to erase the spot (or bird) in the top center. --Lmbuga 00:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Commons:Image guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled" --Lmbuga 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    If you say the image hasn't been resized, I'd believe it, but not to that exact size when there are two other images with the same size. --Lmbuga 01:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not an author, so I will not submit a larger file and have no guesses how big it was, but you didn't persuade me that this >than 2mp file lost a lot of needed information (as it is mentioned as a reason in the rules). It is a good picture, no need to compare it with a some picture that could be maybe somewhere --Lvova 03:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dashti_(Jashak)_Salt_Dome_by_HADI_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jashak salt dome, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Same size as others: Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 01:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    The same argument against as a little bit higher - the same disagreement. "Nice picture and QI", much more than needed, no need to compare with unexistent possibilities. --Lvova 03:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lar_National_Park_by_HADI_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lar National Park, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 01:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    The same argument against as a little bit higher - the same disagreement. "Nice picture and QI", much more than needed, no need to compare with unexistent possibilities. --Lvova 03:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:พระธาตุดอยจอมทอง_Phra_Dhatu_Doi_Chom_Thong_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Phra That Doi Chom Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 17:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Level of detail is too low for a well-lit exterior picture, sorry. PC would have needed, as well as treating the burnt highlights --Benjism89 17:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Otranto_-_Coastal_landscape_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Otranto (Apulia, Italy) - Coastal landscape East of town --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Very over-processed picture appearance --Lmbuga 15:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Colors and contrast are very good. The image is sharp in the foreground. May be a bit unsharp on the left trees in the background. But let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Trail_Vodno.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trail in Vodno, Skopje. --Kallerna 05:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry but nothing interesting --A S M Jobaer 11:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Interesting or not, good enough quality for QI --Jakubhal 12:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @A S M Jobaer: The fact that you find this picture uninteresting is irrelevant here. What could be relevant is if the picture was out of Commons' project scope, i.e. "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" (I don't believe it's the case here). --Benjism89 18:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC))
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hortus_Haren_(Groningen)_20-04-2025._(actm.)_37.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hortus Haren. Bud of the Serbian spruce (Picea omorika.)
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 05:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    More opinions please.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Ok for me --Jakubhal 17:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Agree with Sebring12Hrs : the image is just above minimal requirement and yet it isn't sharp. With this type of composition, I would have waited for all the stem to be in focus : here, a tiny portion of the image is in focus and not really sharp. Sorry --Benjism89 18:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Museum_für_Naturkunde_6942.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Specimen of conjoined twins mutation in the Natural History Museum, Berlin, Germany. --Phyrexian 23:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Very nice. I'd crop a bit off the bottom to keep the ends equidistant. --Crisco 1492 00:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Crisco 1492: ✓ Done. --Phyrexian 06:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose The lighting is bad. Also, the photo could be sharper. In my opinion, it's not a high-quality image. -- Spurzem 10:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Catania_BW_2025-04-25_16-03-17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Catania, Cathedral of Sant' Agata, upper half of the façade --Berthold Werner 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    Sсulpture group on the top and pillars next to it are badly distorted (due to heavy perspective correction I guess). --Екатерина Борисова 23:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I have now uploaded a version with a smaller correction. Maybe this is better. Please check again. --Berthold Werner 09:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
    Sculpture looks almost normal now, but the building is leaning. This is a common PS trap: either the building is not vertical, but has normal proportions, or it is straightened, but the proportions are distorted. I can't decide if it's QI now, let's wait for some other opinion. --Екатерина Борисова 01:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    Not correcting the perspective is OK for me here, but there is CA (mostly at the top center) --Benjism89 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Taken from bellow, good for me now --Lmbuga 17:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Hotel_Mercure,_Middle_Road,_Singapur,_2023-08-16,_DD_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercure Hotel, Middle Road, Singapore --Poco a poco 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, one cannot see here the real shape of the building --Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 07:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted --Lmbuga 16:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think distortion is acceptable in the new version. --Benjism89 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Обитатели_петербургского_Океанариума_10_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corydoras pygmaeus, previously the need to crop was discussed (the result is a little bit above 2mp) --Lvova 07:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I can't imagine this as a quality image. I can also crop a very little part of a landscape and it wouldn't be a quality image. The fish isn't very sharp and it's blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    But I want to continue the previous talk about possibility for 10mm fish in the water to be sharper. Eyes and scales are clearly visible, and the goal of this creature is to be a semitransparent. --Lvova 17:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the image is too small and unsharp --Jakubhal 18:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massively cropped (which is against QI guidelines itself), but apart from that: If it is at the minimum resolution of almost exactly 2 MP, at least it should be razor-sharp (which this one isn't). --Plozessor 11:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Place_des_Arcades_in_Sauveterre-de-R_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Place des Arcades in Sauveterre-de-Rouergue, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Here the perspective correction has led to the fact that the middle of the image falls back, and the left side of the building looks noticeably higher than the right. --Екатерина Борисова 02:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't see the "middle of the image fallas back" or the left building higher than the right buildings. --Sebring12Hrs 11:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the left building is higher than the right buildings, but one side of the left building is higher than another. --Lvova 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded. --Tournasol7 06:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, and white balance off. (Both is not natural as the picture was taken shortly after noon in May.) Perspective is harder to fix, and indeed it looks a bit weird because on both edges the buildings are higher than in the corner (which is in the middle). Here is a suggestion: https://ibb.co/Z12DQqkY. --Plozessor 11:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Your version looks fine! -- Екатерина Борисова 20:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can't see anything wrong with PC here, it looks natural when the buildings are small and the photographer far from them. WB seems fine to me . But yes, as in many of your pictures Krzysztof, it looks like a storm will start in five minutes : increase exposure ! :) --Benjism89 18:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mausoleum_of_António_Gomes_Leal,_by_Francisco_dos_Santos,_Alto_de_São_João_cemetery,_Lisbon,_Portugal_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mausoleum of António Gomes Leal, by Francisco dos Santos, Alto de São João cemetery, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The statue looks good, but the background is very overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The background is indeed bright, but not overexposed: there are no clipped highlights, neither in the original Raw file nor in the edited JPEG --Julesvernex2 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are lighting conditions that make a good photo impossible. Here, the shadows are too dark, and the background is grossly overexposed in places. In my opinion, this photo is by no means a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult light conditions with the sunlit background indeed, but IMO the photographer handled them very well. Some elements in the background are very bright but IMO not clipped. The actual subject is properly exposed and razor-sharp. --Plozessor 11:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI agree with Plozessor. --Romzig 17:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment This reminds me of my attempt to photograph the black cat in the dark basement without any light. I definitely should have featured the picture here. ;-) Best regards -- Spurzem 06:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the complaints about the bright background are absolutely fair, so I've uploaded a new version with slightly reduced highlights (although not so much as to give the image that awful low-contrast HDR-look). A couple of points on where I personally stand on this image: i) Is the background overexposed? No. Overexposure is when parts of the image are captured as pure white (R:100%, G:100%, B:100%) because the full well capacity of some pixels was surpassed. That did not happen here; ii) Was this the best time to photograph the statue? No. A few minutes before the dappled light over the statue was probably stronger, reducing the contrast to the background. I'll have to ge there again :) --Julesvernex2 09:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Private_Palace,_Pasargadae_-_Columns.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columns in the Private Palace (Palace P), Pasargadae, Iran --Bgag 02:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some columns blurry, insufficient DoF. --Tagooty 03:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support the main elements in the foreground are in focus. Not bad, imho. --Harlock81 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 11:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, not perfect but good enough --Jakubhal 18:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 20:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 20:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Marriott,_Nicoll_Highway,_Singapur,_2023-08-16,_DD_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marriott Hotel, Nicoll Highway, Singapore --Poco a poco 08:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but this looks too distorted to me. Not really sharp. I think you should have less sky and more ground in the compo --Benjism89 11:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    I made some improvements, over the bar now I believe, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    Composition is much better now, thanks ! But I still feel the top of the building is too distorted and not really sharp,  Weak oppose --Benjism89 17:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is more than OK to me, every sharp at the very top of the building. --Tuxyso 20:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, cannot see the real shape of the building. --Kallerna 09:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is acceptable here (though trees in the bottom are blurry a bit), but the building is extremely distorted. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted in multiple ways. --Plozessor 04:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Otranto_-_Cava_di_bauxite_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Otranto (Apulia, Italy) - Lake created by an abandoned bauxite mine --Benjism89 06:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is not good --Poco a poco 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe not perfect, but over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Орехово,_хаски.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Huskie in Orekhovo --Lvova 06:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The left area is not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 20:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Cropped. --Lvova 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Both previous crops were better than the last one, imho. The left-hand side of the dog (face and side) is just a spot of white, without any detail of the fur. --Harlock81 10:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you. I returned the first crop, so kind of withdraw :) Lvova 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Marktstrasse_45_in_Landau_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marktstraße 45 in Landau in der Pfalz, Rhineland-Pal., Germany. --Tournasol7 06:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The straightening of the perspective gave the impression that the pediment is at an angle to the building. This is not true. --Lvova 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Lvova: Sorry, I didn't get it. Are you referring to the top of the roof? May you explain, please? --Harlock81 10:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    pediment :) Yes, it can be said the top of the roof. A distortion arises, as if the front facade and pediment are not located in one line, but at a very obtuse, but still angle. Lvova 17:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted IMO--Lmbuga 16:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A fragment of a Japanese lamp from the 18th century --Lvova 06:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline bottom crop. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 16:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mary_Magdalene_church_in_Gramond_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mary Magdalene church in Gramond, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Domob 05:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC) )
  •  Oppose The tower tends to fall down because of PC. --Lvova 20:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lvova is right. The general effect is unrealistic. --Harlock81 09:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded. --Tournasol7 06:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose distorted --Lmbuga 16:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment To clarify on my original vote, I've seen pictures like this pass QI in the past, and pictures with a perspective like this but without straightened verticals rejected. I think that it does look a bit unnatural, but to me this is fine (although admittedly borderline). Perhaps it is not possible to take a QI of the church at that spot, and would have been necessary to be in a different spot and use a longer lens. --Domob 17:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because it's horizontally tilted at the bottom (see the war memorial and the church windows). You could skew the lower right corner upwards a bit. Also, though I would not oppose just because of that, it could be slightly brighter and I think WB is a bit too cold. For me it would be perfect like this: https://ibb.co/rKknLqnD. --Plozessor 03:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:At London 2025 407 - Albert Memorial.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Albert Memorial, London --Mike Peel 05:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The file name could be more meaningful. --Milseburg 19:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your image titles are often very vague. I'm sending this one to CR as an example to clarify whether titles of this type are meaningful enough. --Milseburg 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Milseburg. Most of Mike's file names do not comply with Commons' file naming guideline which literally says: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg". Thus  Oppose for now. --Plozessor (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Milseburg and Plozessor: My reason is that I'm already putting the description in the file description and in the categories, also putting it into the filename seems redundant, and either take up more time with file uploads or with moving files. I never object to other editors renaming the files, and also rename them on request, like I will here. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: However, it should be no problem giving the photos a more meaningful name, right by when uploading them. This will save us from queries and the hassle of moving them. --Milseburg 11:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: When moving images from one category to another, file names often help me and save me a precious time from opening each description page separately. That's another reason. --Benjism89 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: "Putting description into the filename" may 'seem redundant' to you but it is required by official Commons guidelines. You should not rename them only "on request" but give them proper names from the beginning. --Plozessor 03:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not a policy requirement. I'm using LrMediaWiki to batch-upload photos from Lightroom, and while it lets me easily set "<text> Year NNN", it doesn't seem to do bulk custom filenames for each file. Probably there's a better place to have this discussion more generally? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_moisture_sucking_activity_of_Euploea_core_(Cramer,_(1780))_-_Common_Crow_WLB_DSC_9485a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination
  • Close wing moisture sucking activity of Euploea core (Cramer, (1780)) - Common Crow --Sandipoutsider 11:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 12:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 08:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photo is overprocessed. --Tuxyso 20:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tuxyso --Smial 00:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 07:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Candlelight_Prayer_Ritual.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka (by Muhammad Amdad Hossain) -- Kaim Amin 18:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but too strong noise and unsharp. Sorry --Jakubhal 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Smoke is not noise. --Ermell 21:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Added implicit support as Ermell objected to Jakubhal's decline--Plozessor 05:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. When I load the file at full screen, I can easly see the chroma noise at the upper left. --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Unusual composition, but very appealing to me. Yes, there is some chroma noise in the upper left corner, but IMO that is neglectable. Sharpness is acceptable for a night drone shot. --Plozessor 05:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not only the corner. Strong chroma noise is everywhere. It is also not very sharp as it was photographed from hand at 1/8 s Jakubhal 06:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • It was taken with a drone, not "by hand". IMO the lack of perfect sharpness is due to the combination of small sensor, high ISO and noise reduction.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Orlová,_socha_17._listopadu_2021_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orlová, Karviná District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The statue looks really good, but CA's on trees in the background spoil the image IMO --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, blue tint, subject not standing out from background. --Plozessor 05:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Not too bad, though I'd chosen f/4 or eben f/2.8 to get better bokeh (hopefully). The only thing that really bothers me is the colorful advertising and the car in the background on the right. I have drawn a suggestion for a different crop as a note in the photo. --Smial 11:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support quality is OK, but the cropped should be improved (see suggestion of Smial) --Tuxyso 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tuxyso 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ziegelstrasse_2_in_Hann._Muenden_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ziegelstraße 2 in Hann. Münden, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, also it seems to be WB issue here. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.Anna.Massini 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The parts of building is falling down at this picture. I specially checked google panoramas, that it is not like this in reality. Lvova 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. The perspective isn't so bad, the upper parts of the house and the building to the right are leaning in reality. I think it's because of the crop that it appears unnatural because the surrounding (straight) buildings are not visible. However, the picture is also too dark and has a bit too cold WB. Yes, it was taken at dusk, but that doesn't mean that the picture must be dark. I would probably accept a brighter version. --Plozessor 03:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Plozessor: The picture is brighter now. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the upper parts do not lean. They appear quite vertical using Google view. It is not just a problem of brightness. --Harlock81 12:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded with more the brigtness. --Tournasol7 07:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted--Lmbuga 16:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 12:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rauwerd_(Fries_Raerd)._26-02-2025._(actm.)_jpg_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rauwerd (Fries Raerd). Raised cemetery at the Laurentius church. Graves from the second half of the nineteenth century.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I don't like the crop. Other opinion ? --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • When viewed in full size, I would appreciate a little more detail and a little less noise. --Paramanu Sarkar 06:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Paramanu Sarkar *✓ Done. Noise reduction and a bit more detail. Note: these are very old, damaged gravestones. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 13:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hochries,_Alpes_del_Chiemgau,_Alemania,_2024-10-18,_DD_17-22_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hochries, Chiemgau Alps, Germany --Poco a poco 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A colored edge can be seen on the ridge near the sun. The right frame is too blurred and the transition is too clear. The horizon should not be so curved although the earth is of course a sphere. --Ermell 08:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, thanks --Poco a poco 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 16:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I sharpened it, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss. Btw the images has 32 Mpx of resolution --Poco a poco 12:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if this are CAs or not but there are some strange textures at the top of the trees. I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    That was a bit of chroma noise, removed. Poco a poco 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It has some technical deficiencies (especially sharpness and detail), but the composition is very good and overall it is over the bar for me. It is a bit dark, but it was taken at evening so that seems realistic. --Plozessor 07:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is good now but there are some stitching errors visible if you look at the horizont.--Ermell 10:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, there are stitching errors, had overlooked these. --Plozessor 03:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Will need 2 days to fix them Poco a poco 06:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Plozessor, Ermell: I'm ready to fix any stitching issues, but I cannot say for sure that there are any. In some areas, they could be but I'm not 100% sure. Could you please add notes in the areas you believe rework is required? Poco a poco 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Marked an obvious one. --Plozessor 15:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, ✓ Done Poco a poco 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now. --Plozessor 05:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 05:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 25 May → Mon 02 Jun
  • Mon 26 May → Tue 03 Jun
  • Tue 27 May → Wed 04 Jun
  • Wed 28 May → Thu 05 Jun
  • Thu 29 May → Fri 06 Jun
  • Fri 30 May → Sat 07 Jun
  • Sat 31 May → Sun 08 Jun
  • Sun 01 Jun → Mon 09 Jun
  • Mon 02 Jun → Tue 10 Jun