Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from QIC)
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 26 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]] 16:24, 26 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 26, 2025

[edit]

June 25, 2025

[edit]

June 24, 2025

[edit]

June 23, 2025

[edit]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

June 21, 2025

[edit]

June 20, 2025

[edit]

June 19, 2025

[edit]

June 18, 2025

[edit]

June 17, 2025

[edit]

June 16, 2025

[edit]

June 15, 2025

[edit]

June 13, 2025

[edit]

June 12, 2025

[edit]

June 11, 2025

[edit]

June 10, 2025

[edit]

June 9, 2025

[edit]

June 8, 2025

[edit]

June 3, 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:2024_Podzamek,_mauzoleum_rodu_von_Magnis_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podzamek, the mausoleum of the von Magnis family 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose CA in the leaves (fixable). --Plozessor 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very unfortunate lighting. The mausoleum can probably only be photographed well in diffuse light. -- Spurzem 08:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Sainte-Eugénie_de_Biarritz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Sainte-Eugénie church in Biarritz, the Port des Pêcheurs beach and the Port des Pêcheurs at sunset seen from the Basta rock. --Espandero 19:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Textures of the trees and leaves are overprocessed and strange. --Sebring12Hrs 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I gave it a go but honestly it's not about over-processing because I barely touched the trees compared to the rest. They look like this in the RAW file as well so I guess it has to do with the low lighting when I took the picture. I don't think it's that distracting when looking at the picture in full. Do you? (same for the other file) --Espandero 21:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. I understand the reasons of Espandero , but it cannot be considered a quality photo. Sorry Anna.Massini 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow it's overprocessed, it looks oversharpened and has high noise. Probably happened already in the camera due ISO 800. Could as well be a result of noise reduction. --Plozessor 15:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Sainte-Eugénie_de_Biarritz_et_plage_du_Port_des_Pêcheurs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Sainte-Eugénie church in Biarritz and the Port des Pêcheurs beach at sunset seen from the Basta rock. --Espandero 19:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Textures of the trees and leaves are overprocessed and strange. --Sebring12Hrs 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Таврическая_улица,_37,_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tavricheskaya street, 37, St. Petersburg --Lvova 09:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Slight PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 12:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not so sharp and this tilt bothers me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment In my opinion, tilt is really minimal here, but yes, level of detail is borderline for an outdoor picture taken on a sunny day (resolution being barely above minimal required). --Benjism89 19:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Reflection_of_trees,_Calouste_Gulbenkian_Foundation,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reflection of trees, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 10:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    There're many strange blurry spots all across the image, that don't look like natural ones. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    The blurry spots are indeed natural, they are pebbles lurking just beneath the surface of this shallow pond (plus a few leaves on the surface). The goal of these elements is to hint the viewer that they're looking at a reflection. --Julesvernex2 20:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support I support the photo because even if at first glance the points where there are stones appear annoying, it is a very original vision, and understanding that it is an image reflected in the water, I consider it to be of good quality. Anna.Massini 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lamborghini_Countach_25th_Anniversary_IMG_2994.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 17:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Great car, but too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    *  Support Not the best background but very good view to the car and good quality. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 18:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Natura_in_Val_d'Ambra.jpg_

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination I apologize, the left side is blurry, so I withdraw my candidacy.Anna.Massini 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phrynocephalus_strauchi_2.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 05:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Young_Lanius_collurio.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young red-backed schrike.-Carpodacus 18:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is the head really sharp here? --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness, not only the head. --Sebring12Hrs 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough sharp. --Bgag 03:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_XK_(X150)_Convertible_4.2_IMG_2974.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jaguar XK (X150) Convertible 4.2 in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --PascalHD 20:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background and dark areas are noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 22:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fiat_Abarth_595_esseesse_IMG_3014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fiat Abarth 595 esseesse in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The car is too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 08:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    • I uploaded a new version which is less noisy. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Both variants are good enough for an A4 size print. I don't think it would be good to denoise even more. --Smial 17:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good t me now. --MB-one 15:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 15:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Black_Oak_Heritage_Park,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2025-06-07_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black Oak Heritage Park, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-06-07 --Crisco 1492 01:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Path is fuzzy. Also needs a specific description. --Tagooty 02:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Path is covered in poplar seeds. Of course it's fuzzy. --Crisco 1492 10:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Sent to CR as Decline incorrectly changed back to Nomination. --Tagooty 05:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support somewhat more DOF would have been nice, but good enough. --Smial 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good imo. Limited DOF on purpose. Clearly QI for me.--ArildV 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Basilica_Santa_Maria_della_Salute_Venice_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Salute Roman Catholic church seen from the Grand Canal --Kallerna 14:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top Figure not sharp, right tower not sharp and distorted. --KaiBorgeest 20:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    Implicit oppose. --Harlock81 05:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    Due to PC it is quite obvious that the top part of the img suffers slight detail loss compared to the bottom part when pixel peeping on full size. However, overall it should be within QI standards. --Kallerna 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO.--Ermell 08:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think the perspective correction is too exaggerated in this case, and the small flaws are all not disturbing. --Smial 17:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 07:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 08:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Световой_фонарь_Большого_дворца_усадьбы_Шуваловых_в_Парголово.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling windows of the Shuvalov Manor in Pargolovo, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By User:Nartin r --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think it is sharp enough. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 10:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really a problem with sharpness, but it's lacking detail and has chroma noise, and the perspective it strange and not appealing. --Plozessor 03:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 06:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_люк_на_Манаса_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Almaty, Kazakhstan. --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weird image processing even visible in A4 size. --Smial 11:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but IMO above the bar for the purpose. --Plozessor 03:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 06:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_люк_на_Манаса_02.jpg

[edit]

  • I think it's sharp enough for an image of a very worn manhole cover which is constantly being rubbed by car wheels. --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed smartphone picture, but IMO acceptable. --Plozessor 03:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 06:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Obergasse_21_in_Zwingenberg_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Obergasse 21 in Zwingenberg, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 06:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technical quality is good here, but the central building looks like it's about to fall - supposedly because of perspective correction. I don't find it normal, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh come on. You say the perspective is good, but you have a strange feeling so you vote against it. Without exaggeration, please. --Tournasol7 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't say a word that the prospective here is good (it's not good for me), and I didn't say anything about strange feelings either. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand those votes against perspective correction. I don't see any falling building in this picture. I will always support those kind of photos. In addition, this is very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 07:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I know from the practice that one degree of deviation from the vertical is a reason here to decline the image, but the visible distorted buildings pass with a bang. I've seen this many times, but I won't stop saying that distorted buildings are not normal, no matter how sharp they are. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. Judging by the windows, perspective seems correct. Some verticals seem leaning or "falling", but I think they are crooked in reality, which is often the case with old houses. The angle isn't optimal, but it seems that it's a narrow alley and the photographer took it already from the maximum distance. --Plozessor 03:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 06:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pollux's_horse_transferred_from_a_temple_of_Castor_and_Pollux_to_the_Piazza_del_Campidoglio_on_the_Capitoline_in_1585.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pollux's horse --Wilfredor 15:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the blurred foreground thing at the bottom right corner ruins it --Benjism89 16:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Moving this to CR as I would like to have other opinions on this. After I mentioned the blurred foreground at the bottom right corner, you retouched the image by copy-pasting a part of the neck on the blurred area. Although I think you did a pretty good job (I think most people won't notice it), I wonder if this image is still a fairly accurate representation of this artwork. In reality, this sculpture doesn't have cracks at the same places as in your picture. In my opinion, this kind of retouching is OK on a tiny surface, but here, I think it's too large --Benjism89 09:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 Anna.Massini 11:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The retouched (probably AI-generated) corner is a too large portion of the actual subject. (Also tilt and blue tint.) --Plozessor 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 & Plozessor. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_William_Edward_Forster,_London,_April_2025_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of William Edward Forster, London --Mike Peel 09:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose distracting background. --Kallerna 05:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is not disturbing. Other opinions? --KaiBorgeest 22:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose distracting background for me too Anna.Massini 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Why shouldn't this photo be a quality image? Take a look at the picture of the Lamborghini below. It couldn't be much worse. But as far as I can see, the image easily passes the QI test. So: equal rights for all. Right? -- Spurzem 14:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, I think it is a QI.--KaiBorgeest 16:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting background, and half of the face is hidden in the dark --Jakubhal 18:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal. --Harlock81 05:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Kolonia_Laski,_kolumna_maryjna_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kolonia Laski, Maria column 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The subject is in shadow. --Kallerna 05:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no reason to decline if the other similar one is promoted. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --KaiBorgeest 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not optimal light situation, but the photographer handled it very well. --Plozessor 03:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 06:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Spessartwiesen_Heigenbruecken_Lohrbach1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heigenbruecken, nature reserve 'Spessartwiesen', SAC 'Lohrbach- und Aubach-Tal' in 'LSG innerhalb des Naturparks Spessart (ehemals Schutzzone)' --KaiBorgeest 21:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA, awkward composition, tilted. --Kallerna 05:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree The right trees ARE leaning out of the water. If you compare to the backgorund, the whole picture is NOT tileted.--KaiBorgeest 22:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking and the blades of grass, the picture may not be tilted. However, it is not enough sharp according to me. --Harlock81 05:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Catacombas_de_San_Pablo,_Rabat,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-25,_DD_160.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Paul’s Catacombs, Rabat, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 12:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp to me. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 20:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly pro considering the difficult light situation.--KaiBorgeest 20:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Adequate sharpness for the situation. --Plozessor 04:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:At_New_York_City_2024_226.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columbus Monument, New York City --Mike Peel 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saiphani02 07:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Romainbehar 10:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upper part - unfortunately the actual statue - out of focus. Also improper file name. --Plozessor 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline indeed, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, tilted, CA's on trees. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Журчалка_в_ботаническом_саду_Ташкента.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flower hoverfly in the Tashkent Botanical Garden. -- 26D 06:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saiphani02 07:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of insufficient ID. The genus should be mentioned for a hoverfly IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I see, it was done. Lvova 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment No, it was not. No genus or species was assigned. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    But Syrphidae on flowers? Lvova 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Растения_с_Тропического_маршрута_Ботанического_сада_Петра_Великого_175.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea nouchali var. caerulea --Lvova 05:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Kallerna 05:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Firstly, no - it's a small radius pool, the far edge is quite logically rounded. Secondly, if anyone else thinks this is a problem, it can easily be fixed. --Lvova 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not a perspective correction extremist, but the horizontally tilted water lilies in the background are somehow disturbing to me. Probably you can rotate the picture so that these are horizontal? Otherwise the picture is very good and it should be a shame not to have it promoted. --Plozessor 04:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, I did as you said. Lvova 17:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is QI for me --Jakubhal 18:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 08:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 08:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Растения_с_Тропического_маршрута_Ботанического_сада_Петра_Великого_142.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Agave chiapensis --Lvova 05:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose low quality snapshot --Kallerna 05:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in higher quality reviews. --Lvova 10:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically OK. It is a QI, maybe not a featured image--KaiBorgeest 21:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Invalid unsigned vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
 Commentsignature added --KaiBorgeest 21:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most parts of the actual plant are sharp and of good quality, but with the composition and perspective (resulting from the angle) and cut-off top it's not a QI, sorry. --Plozessor 05:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor Jakubhal 18:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 10:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Растения_с_Тропического_маршрута_Ботанического_сада_Петра_Великого_178.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea cv. Panama Pacific --Lvova 08:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, crop, distracting reflection. --Kallerna 05:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I like the context from the roof of the greenhouse, I want to hear other opinions. --Lvova 10:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There reflections disturb a bit, otherwise OK.--KaiBorgeest 21:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Reflection is not disturbing to me, otherwise very good. --Plozessor 05:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for a QI --Jakubhal 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматинский_ботанический_сад,_магнолия_09.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ibisbill_flying.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ibisbill flying in samari river hetauda. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose No categories --Ermell 05:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Move to discussions due Ermell's implicit oppose. --Plozessor 17:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I just added the second category. Also this is good enough for a flying bird. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Walruses_in_the_Russian_Arctic_National_Park,_Novaya_Zemlya_2015-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination user:Nixette, WLE 2016 --Lvova 08:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Horizon is tilted. --Sebring12Hrs 09:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lukas Raich 15:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The PC isn't done, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Tilted. Nice photo otherwise. Maybe add some more contrast.--ArildV 09:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Giro_d'Italia_2025_stage_17_Passo_Tonale_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peloton on the top of Passo Tonale, Giro d'Italia 2025 --Kallerna 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
    a bit blurred the biker on the left --GiovanniPen 23:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is o. k. for me. -- Spurzem 20:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed and the left biker is cut and blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 11:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That left crop makes it below the bar for me.--Peulle 19:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 06:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Bobolink. Suffield Wildlife Management Area. Suffield, CT USA --Pdanese 12:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benlisquare 12:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus point seems ok, but I can't accept the blurring noise reduction combined with oversharpening. --Smial 11:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. The bird is sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-necked_puffbird_(Notharchus_hyperrhynchus_hyperrhynchus)_Rio_Napo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-necked puffbird (Notharchus hyperrhynchus) --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DXR 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support May be a bit overprocessed ? But sharpness is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The focus looks ok, but the image noise and sharpening are both exaggerated. It's NOT at all bad if a little noise remains and surfaces of any kind don't look like plastic wrap or LEGO bricks. --Smial 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose No problem with focus, but for me it is too much oversharpened --Jakubhal 04:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The critical remarks are reasonable and correct, yet the composition is well calibrated, the bird is captured in its habitat in full light, and the all works for me. --Harlock81 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wire-crested_thorntail_(Discosura_popelairii)_female_Wayra.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wire-crested thorntail (Discosura popelairii) female --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:AC_SO_Figuren_Karl_V._und_Sigismund.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statues at the north facade of the City Hall of Aachen --Grunpfnul 14:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Overexposed --Екатерина Борисова 00:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Check your Monitor Settings please --Grunpfnul 06:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    My monitor settings are OK and I still can't see details of faces of these statues while the middle part of image look almost normal. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Well, but it's not OK to me, so I'd like to hear some other opinions, not only yours. --Екатерина Борисова 02:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. Slightly overexposed. The Karl would still be acceptable, but details in Sigismund's face have actually disappeared. ..Smial 13:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Joseph_Catholic_Church,_River_Canard,_Ontario,_Canada,_2025-06-03_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Joseph Catholic Church, River Canard, Ontario, Canada, 2025-06-03 --Crisco 1492 01:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 02:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jesus statue on the top is very unsharp --Екатерина Борисова 02:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 17:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Addressed; statue has been sharpened. --Crisco 1492 03:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's still blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    Please do not cancel the support vote --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose But I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 17:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is the usual effect of subsequent perspective correction using software. The interpolation of the pixels simply amplifies existing, even minor blurring. The higher up in the picture, you can also see this in the contours of the façade. However, the image is good enough for an A4-size printout. --Smial 12:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Really good enough for an A4 print. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality in natural magnification --KaiBorgeest 12:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrari_Purosangue_MYLE_Festival_2025_DSC_9651.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ferrari Purosangue at MYLE Festival 2025 --Alexander-93 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 14:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A rare car. But the image is cropped too tightly. The front and the wheel area could be brightened a bit. And the surroundings don't match the car. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I would agree that it's not an ideal background setting, but capturing anything in these conditions is difficult considering there are people milling around everywhere. The person on the right is cropped but you can still see the face. The car itself seems OK in terms of lighting and focus, so I'll say it's an okay capture of a real-life scene.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an easy photo in a chaotic place. The car is visible well. Anna.Massini 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Anna.Massini: Indeed! We can see a car in the picture. But if that's enough for an award, then we've come far enough. Best regards, and please, no offense -- Spurzem 11:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC) * CommentSpecific. I meant that the car is in focus in all its parts and you can understand the details. Anna.Massini 07:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --XRay 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Smial 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lagueirões_-Valongo_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Neighborhood in Valongo --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Left side is leaning out. Otherwise borderline but probably acceptable. --Plozessor 03:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Corrected Perspective -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added two more categories. -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed Dagestan carpet on a felt base --Lvova 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Uneven brightness. Could probably be improved with a reverse radial gradient mask or similar. --Plozessor 03:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • My processing skills are not enough for it... --Lvova 08:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you want, you can use my version and move it to discussions (I will not promote a picture where I was involved). --Plozessor 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you! --Lvova 08:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k.--Ermell 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 18 Jun → Thu 26 Jun
  • Thu 19 Jun → Fri 27 Jun
  • Fri 20 Jun → Sat 28 Jun
  • Sat 21 Jun → Sun 29 Jun
  • Sun 22 Jun → Mon 30 Jun
  • Mon 23 Jun → Tue 01 Jul
  • Tue 24 Jun → Wed 02 Jul
  • Wed 25 Jun → Thu 03 Jul
  • Thu 26 Jun → Fri 04 Jul