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 May 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 May 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 May 14 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]] 01:03, 14 May 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).


May 13, 2025

[edit]

May 12, 2025

[edit]

May 11, 2025

[edit]

May 10, 2025

[edit]

May 9, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 2025

[edit]

May 7, 2025

[edit]

May 6, 2025

[edit]

May 5, 2025

[edit]

May 4, 2025

[edit]

May 3, 2025

[edit]

May 2, 2025

[edit]

May 1, 2025

[edit]

April 30, 2025

[edit]

April 29, 2025

[edit]

April 28, 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:Info_Dog_Show_Ooty_May25_A7CR_05594.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Information sign, Dog Show 2025, Ooty, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu --Tagooty 02:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The poster would be subject to copyright in many jurisdictions, not sure about India, but I would argue it's not an original work for QI purposes if you're just reproducing the poster. --Buidhe 02:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Many photos of signboards, paintings, etc are promoted as QI. In India, no FOP for "paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc." COM:FOP India This is a simple textual sign board with no artistic elements, so is not covered by the restriction. --Tagooty 03:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I have changed that template to link to fix page formatting --Jakubhal 03:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: has raised two issues and implicitly opposed. I've responded. Am moving this to CR to get other views. --Tagooty 03:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I cannot see any opposing vote here. So the image should not be in CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Орешек,_Часовая_башня01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruined bell tower in Oreshek fortress, Schlüsselburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Sky has an unnatural texture. NR should help. Otherwise good --Tagooty 02:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, low level of detail and oversharpened IMO, sorry. (No support vote yet so I'm opposing, but please move this one to CR like the others if you wish) --Benjism89 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to denoise it a bit per Tagooty's request, and I don't think it's oversharpened. --Екатерина Борисова 01:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
    Weak  Oppose Sky still has posterisation. With this and marginal detail, I find it below the bar for QI --Tagooty 03:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Krótka_7-9_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 7-9 Krótka Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 00:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop on the left (lower corner) is not ideal. --Frank Schulenburg 02:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Frank, easy to fix though (just crop a bit tigher on the left side). --Plozessor 03:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Jogja_-_Yogyakarta_Station_-_arrival_at_night_(2025)_-_img_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Platforms of Yogyakarta Railway Station, Indonesia --Chainwit. 18:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, well composed wityh the leading lines of the tracks, platforms and columbs working well together. Should have a "do not try this at home" disclaimer ;) --Needsmoreritalin 19:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good composition, but overprocessed --Jakubhal 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed by the smartphone, but not to an unacceptable degree. Overall still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nissan_Sentra_(B18)_DSC_8684.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nissan Sentra (B18) in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part of the vehicle is too bright, especially around the rear window and trunk lid. The overall contrast could be a bit stronger. Furthermore, the car in the background is distracting. Please discuss whether this photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 17:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the background --Jakubhal 08:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car in the background spoils the composition. --Plozessor 03:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Орешек,_Зверинец02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corner part of former Soldiers Barracks in Oreshek fortress, Schlüsselburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree : level of real detail is low (even for 2016), this image is oversharpened (maybe by the camera) --Benjism89 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It is not perfect as it was taken with a camera with an 1/2.5" sensor, but still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Орешек,_Зверинец03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruined part of former Soldiers Barracks in Oreshek fortress, Schlüsselburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree : level of real detail is low (even for 2016), this image is oversharpened (maybe by the camera) --Benjism89 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It is not perfect as it was taken with a camera with an 1/2.5" sensor, but still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Орешек,_Светличная_башня,_водные_ворота01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Svetlichnaya (Residential) Tower with water gates in Oreshek fortress, Schlüsselburg, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree : level of real detail is low (even for 2016), this image is oversharpened (maybe by the camera) --Benjism89 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Coperchio_di_tombino_in_Radda_in_Chianti.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Radda in Chianti. -- Anna.Massini 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Екатерина Борисова 00:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова Jakubhal 19:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Lufthansa_Boeing_747-8_D-ABYI_IAD_VA1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 on final approach at Washington Dulles International Airport, Virginia --Acroterion 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    The picture has been overprocessed, sharpness gain is very strong under aircraft belly and around engines. --Shougissime 08:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    Shougissime, you're right, thanks. Workflow adjusted to deal with the noise and reupoloaded. --Acroterion 16:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Looks better, good shot! --Shougissime 18:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:1967_Toyopet_Masterline_Van.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1967 Toyopet Masterline Van --TTTNIS 13:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This blurred square to hide the face spoils the picture. --Sebring12Hrs 11:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-26_Brauereifest_Rheinfelden_AG_057.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographed to the April 26th, 2025 in the Rheinfelden AG (Switzerland). By --Ahmet Düz 18:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, chromatic aberration --Jakubhal 19:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral sending to CR because CA can be fixed and sharpness is high enough IMO --MB-one 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, CA, overcontrasted. --Plozessor 06:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Dünenlandschaft_im_Osten_Norderneys_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dunes of Norderney --Stephan Sprinz 09:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, but too strong noise. Also a dust spot on the right which should be fixed anyway --Jakubhal 11:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 09:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good now ! --Sebring12Hrs 09:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too much noise (apparently no NR applied at all despite ISO 800) and dust spot. Both could be fixed I guess. --Plozessor 03:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a corrected version @Jakubhal @Sebring12Hrs @Plozessor
  •  Support Much better and good quality for me. Thank you. Jakubhal 07:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, good now! --Plozessor 03:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:European_Rabbit_09_05_2025_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An European rabbit kitten. --Alexis Lours 08:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, very nice critter, but that white blurred space in the foreground is disturbing --Jakubhal 09:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. Probably you can crop that away. --Plozessor 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Positano_sea.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Positano city and beach. --Alexis Lours 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 21:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Horizon is a bit tilted, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted horizon and too many blown out objects. --Plozessor 11:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Свеча_с_сухоцветами.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Handmade candle with dried flowers --Lvova 17:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 17:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but shallow DoF and very little is sharp --Jakubhal 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp indeed. --Sebring12Hrs 20:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shallow DoF, making random parts of random objects sharp. --Plozessor 03:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-26_Brauereifest_Rheinfelden_AG_046.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographed to the April 26th, 2025 in the Rheinfelden AG (Switzerland). By --Ahmet Düz 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 17:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but the image is not sharp anf has CA's --Екатерина Борисова 00:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Jakubhal 04:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Sebring12Hrs 20:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall sharpness is borderline, probably still acceptable, but there's also CA and chroma noise. --Plozessor 03:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-26_Brauereifest_Rheinfelden_AG_049.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 08:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Michael_Archangel_church_in_Brojce_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the St Michael Archangel church in Brójce, Lubusz V., Poland. --Tournasol7 02:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 02:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is very distracting. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 14:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not distracting to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This shadow does not hide or spoil anything IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture; the shadow is probably a matter of taste but I don't consider it disturbing, it even adds to the composition. --Plozessor 03:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 14:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 14:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:1967_Toyopet_Corona.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1967 Toyopet Corona --TTTNIS 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 20:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred numberplate and faces are distracting, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • The blanked-out number plate isn't great. In this one I don't find the faces distracting since they're behind the windscreen anyway, which will blur them intrinsicly. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm bothered by the deheaded spectators in the background and the whitewashed license plate. The people in the vehicle are part of the picture. How else could an old car supposed to drive? -- Spurzem 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Spurzem, what for is that hiding license plates anyway? --Jakubhal 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I can forgive the blank license plate and blurred face - the photo is taken in Japan and the Japanese do take privacy very seriously after all (consent is required for taking photos of people in public spaces). Agree with Spurzem that the people in the background aren't ideal though. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 13:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The driver is holding up a hand apparently to block the camera. Thus, consent appears not to be given. --Tagooty 04:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: this looks very much like, and almost certainly is a greeting to the viewers. It's really hard to imagine someone going to show their car at a public event and trying to cover their face. Hence my doubt whether blurring the faces and license plates is necessary here. Jakubhal 06:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 08:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Miami,_Florida_skyline.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Miami, Florida skyline --Wilfredor 10:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed. Easy to fix with ShiftN. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The building in the middle is a leaning building, architecturally to generate that sensation --Wilfredor 17:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Belit_Onay_2025_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belit Onay in 2025 --Kadellar 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit bright background, but for me good quality. --Jakubhal 17:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Support Not only the background is too bright, but the face and hands are also very bright. Furthermore, the gentleman's skin appears a bit yellow. Please discuss whether this photo is truly a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC) – It's better now. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I might agree about white balance, @Kadellar: can you tweak it a little? Jakubhal 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. The sharpness and focus are perfect and the lighting is acceptable. I don't think that the strange-looking skin tones (even on the hands!) are due to a generally incorrect white balance, but rather to the slight overexposure. A similar effect to the defect often criticised here as ‘postarisation’ when it comes to landscape shots with clouds and blue skies. I hope that this can be fixed with a new RAW processing, because for such a portrait under such shooting conditions I find it really outstanding compared to others. --Smial 10:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: , @Smial: I uploaded a new version. Thanks. --Kadellar 19:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. --Smial 15:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Half-Timbered_House_on_Heisterbacher_Straße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A charming half-timbered house at Heisterbacher Straße 109, Königswinter, Germany --Reda Kerbouche 07:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I want to promote this but it would have come out better if the camera was pointed slightly higher to avoid the cut off building on the right --Buidhe 01:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good smartphone picture. --Sebring12Hrs 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per @Buidhe --Wikisquack 15:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Despite the vertical lines, the image appears distorted. I don't know if it can be improved. -- Spurzem 10:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs, main subject is good here. --Milseburg 18:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd skew and crop it a bit like here. --Plozessor 02:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Agree with Plozessor : it's loo late for a larger composition, so I think cropping it a little further would be better than this in-between composition. --Benjism89 17:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor and Benjism89: I cropped the photo.--Reda Kerbouche 13:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Benjism89 06:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 06:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 06 May → Wed 14 May
  • Wed 07 May → Thu 15 May
  • Thu 08 May → Fri 16 May
  • Fri 09 May → Sat 17 May
  • Sat 10 May → Sun 18 May
  • Sun 11 May → Mon 19 May
  • Mon 12 May → Tue 20 May
  • Tue 13 May → Wed 21 May
  • Wed 14 May → Thu 22 May