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 07 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]] 06:04, 7 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 7, 2025

[edit]

June 6, 2025

[edit]

June 5, 2025

[edit]

June 4, 2025

[edit]

June 3, 2025

[edit]

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 18, 2025

[edit]

May 17, 2025

[edit]

May 16, 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:2025-06-01_Motorsport,_IDM,_90._Internationales_Schleizer_Dreieckrennen-_IDM_Superbike_STP_6201.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination IDM, 90. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen: IDM Superbike: Toni Finsterbusch (GER); panning shot --Stepro 22:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too much motion blur. --Sebring12Hrs 23:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Motion blur was the purpose of this photo. --Stepro 01:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ала-Арча_жаратылыш_паркы_(2022-08-13_11-29-06).jpg

[edit]

File:Собака_спит.jpg

[edit]

File:Beetroot Plants Hullathy Nov24 A7CR 05174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Field with beetroot (Beta vulgaris), Hullathy, Udhagai taluk, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu --Tagooty 01:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose for now because of misidentification. These shiny leaves are quite different from the dull leaves of Raphanus sativus. This is almost certainly Beta vulgaris. BTW, the preceding image File:Radish_Field_Hullathy_Nov24_A7CR_05179.jpg may be correctly identified. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: ✓ Done Thanks for catching this mistake. I've corrected the description and CAT, and requested renaming of the file. --Tagooty 04:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. I removed my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Noto_BW_2025-04-26_10-45-16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Noto, Palazzo Ducezio --Berthold Werner 15:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Is it possible to improve a bit the perspective ? Otherwise ggod. --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    What exactly is wrong with the perspective? --Berthold Werner 14:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    The columns are leaning. I can't imagine this in reality. --Sebring12Hrs 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Columns are ok for me. --Lvova 09:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Spurzem 08:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Haubentaucher_mit_Beute-20250531-RM-163022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe on the old lake in the park of Seehof Castle --Ermell 07:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, sorry --Poco a poco 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 13:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Denoising and sharpening overdone, and even visible in A4 size. --Smial 08:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, probably denoising+sharpening as Smial said. Especially visible at the fish and at the head. --Plozessor 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info @Poco a poco: @Sebring12Hrs: @Smial: @Plozessor: New version uploaded. Please have a look.--Ermell 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Now it's not so heavily processed but the lack of sharpness becomes more obvious. I don't think you can save it. --Poco a poco 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Still borderline for me, removed my opposing vote though. --Plozessor 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Still borderline at full size, but I think it's good enough up to A4 size now. --Smial 10:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20230107_St._Lorenz_Nürnberg_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiraling staircases in the church St. Lorenz in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I performed noise reduction and ask for re-evaluation of the image --FlocciNivis 17:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes it's ok now  Support. --Sebring12Hrs 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version seems ok to me. --Plozessor 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --KaiBorgeest 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC))

File:AC_BD_Rathaus_Aachen_Marktturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City Hall of Aachen, Germany --Grunpfnul 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but f/5.6 is not enough here. ISO 200 and 1/680 sec gives room for more depth of field. --Stepro 12:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    • At 8mm with f5.6, the Main Subject (Tower) is more than in Focus and Even the City hall is in Focus. If a realy midly unsharp background isn't allowed anymore… --Grunpfnul 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absurd perspective. Architectural verticals here, architectural verticals there - if you also correct the perspective of a photo with an already very large 120° angle of view, the result may still be geometrically correct, but this is not an architectural photo, but a caricature. “But you got everything in the frame” is not a sign of quality. Sorry for the harsh words, they are not meant personally, but these extreme wide-angle perspectives have generally got out of hand and I find them terrible. --Smial 09:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Oh, i won't take it personally, but youself did some pc correction work like this - which wonders me, in view of your comment. I never wrote something like "i got everything in the Frame" and i respect your opinion, but then we should expand the rules of QI to "no pc needed for ultra wide angle" or "No Ultra wide angle pictures allowed on QI". Grunpfnul (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the given camera location exact? If so, was there a reason why you didn't step further back to get a more realistic perspective? --Plozessor 17:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Plozessor: There are Benches and Lamp-Posts in the way, if i stepped further back. As already happened, that would surely get me an "There is XY in the view, which spills the image" - sometimes its getting strange here. Grunpfnul (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support in that case. I could not find any better image of this perspective; some "professional" pictures are even more distorted. And in all other aspects it's IMO very good. --Plozessor 03:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the building looks too distorted and unnatural. Also the spire is very blurry and looks like a lump of something. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-30_ALBA_Berlin_gegen_Syntainics_MBC_(Basketball-Bundesliga_2024-25)_by_Sandro_Halank–022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsche Basketball-Bundesliga 2024/25, 31st day of play: ALBA Berlin vs. Syntainics MBC (90:62) – Jānis Gailītis (coach Syntainics MBC) --Sandro Halank 16:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but not sharp although the size is really borderline --Benjism89 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I can count the hairs. Sharp enough for a portrait. --Stepro 12:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 2 MP picture taken with a 24 MP full-frame camera, obviously either heavily cropped or downscaled, which both is against QI guidelines. Also, though 2 MP is considered the minimum size, it would at least have to be perfect in all other aspects, which it isn't. --Plozessor 17:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small for me.--Peulle 08:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 17:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof_Füssen,_Bavaria,_Germany.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bahnhof Füssen, Bavaria, Germany --Wilfredor 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 21:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top of the lamppost disappeared, look at the first version of your photo. And noise reduction is extreme to me. --Sebring12Hrs 00:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You cut the lampost but it is not realisticat all and not beautiful. --Sebring12Hrs 06:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF could be acceptable for such a scene, but here, the only thing in focus is the face of the woman to the front right, everything else is OOF. And excessive NR resulting in unrealistic look, though I might not decline it due that alone. --Plozessor 17:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 17:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_activity_of_Junonia_iphita_(Cramer,_1779)_-_Chocolate_Pansy_WLB_DSC_5863a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking activity of Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779) - Chocolate Pansy --Sandipoutsider 13:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Need more categorization --A S M Jobaer 06:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Clearly in the species category --Jakubhal 08:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • A S M Jobaer: It's not about the amount of categories but rather about their quality and the best category I can think of for a creature is the species --Poco a poco 20:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of the picture also seems ok for me --Jakubhal 15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks right to me.--Peulle 07:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, proper description and categorization. --Plozessor 10:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martina_Franca_-_Porta_di_Santo_Stefano_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martina Franca (Apulia, Italy) - St. Stephen's city gate --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted. --Lvova 13:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The perspective correction is well done. --Tournasol7 06:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the perspective correction was done well. It could be much better with just a little effort. See here. I would rate this image as QI. Aside from that, I don't understand the file name. The statue above depicts Saint Martin. Why is it called Porta_di_Santo_Stefano? -- Spurzem 18:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment The photographer may not be positioned right in front and center of the door in reality. In your version, it seems that the photographer is refocused again, but is this really more realistic ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: In many cases, I would try to position myself so that I am aligned with the building / gate I'm photographing, and then correct horizontal perpective so that the image is symmetric. But in this case, the passage under the gate is not perpendicular to the axis of the gate, so it isn't possible to align with both the gate and the passage under it. For this reason (and also because there were unaesthetic construction works right behind the gate), I chose not to align myself with the gate. As Sebring12Hrs wrote, I don't believe correcting such a large unalignment afterwards is a good idea, your version looks strange in my opinion. --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment And about the name of this picture : well, the name of this gate is Porta di Santo Stefano, although it's carrying the statue of another saint (which is the patron saint of the city so there are statues of saint Martin pretty much everywhere). Sorry but I don't decide on proper names :-) --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to perspective correction, it looks like the lower part of the gate is narrower than the upper one, which obviously does not correspond to reality. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to me that the gate, not the picture, is leaning. --Plozessor 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    In the category it's not like this. Lvova 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Lvova 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_Dark_Horse_Rutesheimer_Autoschau_2025_DSC_9225.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Mustang Dark Horse at Rutesheimer Autoschau 2025 --Alexander-93 18:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Cluttered background --Jakubhal 08:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20221018_Ulmer_Tor_Memmingen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View along the Ulmer Straße to the Ulmer Tor in Memmingen --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Facades are too dark. --Sebring12Hrs 13:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that. Is this okay now? --FlocciNivis 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, discussion has not be resolved here --Jakubhal 08:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good lighting -- Spurzem 12:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. The actual subject - the gate - is properly lit; the dark shadows and strong contrasts are causing an interesting (for me, appealing) look. --Plozessor 10:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. However, the dark areas could be brightened up a little with curves. --Smial 11:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Every day, I'm more and more amazed at what is being rated as a quality image here. Conversely, I'm also surprised at the good photos that are being downgraded. -- Spurzem 09:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I have the same feeling but I don't refer to the same pictures. Here FlocciNivis increased brightness. --Sebring12Hrs 10:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20220702_Aphantopus_hyperantus_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Ringlet in the bird sanctuary Ismaninger Speichersee und Fischteiche --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support My issue here is overexposure of a flower, however there is no issue with sharpness here and I think it's still worth discussion --Jakubhal 08:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose since the flower (that the ringlet sits on) is completely blown out. Sharpness is very good though. --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that now. Thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak supportfor Jakubhal and I find it a beautiful composition Anna.Massini 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 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)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 30 May → Sat 07 Jun
  • Sat 31 May → Sun 08 Jun
  • Sun 01 Jun → Mon 09 Jun
  • Mon 02 Jun → Tue 10 Jun
  • Tue 03 Jun → Wed 11 Jun
  • Wed 04 Jun → Thu 12 Jun
  • Thu 05 Jun → Fri 13 Jun
  • Fri 06 Jun → Sat 14 Jun
  • Sat 07 Jun → Sun 15 Jun