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 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 02 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:25, 2 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 2, 2025

[edit]

May 1, 2025

[edit]

April 30, 2025

[edit]

April 29, 2025

[edit]

April 28, 2025

[edit]

April 27, 2025

[edit]

April 26, 2025

[edit]

April 25, 2025

[edit]

April 24, 2025

[edit]

April 23, 2025

[edit]

April 22, 2025

[edit]

April 21, 2025

[edit]

April 20, 2025

[edit]

April 19, 2025

[edit]

April 18, 2025

[edit]

April 17, 2025

[edit]

April 16, 2025

[edit]

April 15, 2025

[edit]

April 09, 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:20221202_Aphrodite_of_Knidos.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Aphrodite of Knidos in the Glyptothek --FlocciNivis 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Bit noisy. Fixable? --Alexander-93 17:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. There's a bit of noise, yes. But given the lighting conditions, I think the picture is very good. --Romzig 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support  Oppose Level of detail is really low because of noise / aperture. I don't think this passes the QI bar, although the composition is interesting --Benjism89 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Benjism89: Do you really support this picture? The comment does not suggest that --Jakubhal 04:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I am the one who moved this to CR (oldid 102582294), then someone else added the support template, but I intended to oppose this. Thanks for pinging me. --Benjism89 07:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 07:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Motorola_Timeport_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Disassembled mobile phone --Perituss 14:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The shadow ruins the picture a bit. --ZarlokX 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info This should not be here according to the rules. Please only change to "/Discuss" if there is a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Virgin_and_Child_with_two_Angels_-_Sandro_Botticelli.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin and Child with two Angels - Sandro Botticelli --GoldenArtists 12:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose IMO to many reflections at the top. Sorry --MB-one 13:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • s only a small part derived from light, is it so terrible? thank you--GoldenArtists 15:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Jakubhal 17:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's hard to avoid reflections when you take pictures in a museum, and here, I feel the reflections are limited and not very annoying. --Benjism89 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The lighting is poor. The image is too dark overall, but there's a bright spot at the top of the frame. For me it wouldn't be a quality picture, but if the majority considers it to be one, than it is fine with me too. -- Spurzem 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because it's too dark, I guess that exposure was adjusted according to the bright reflection at the top. I know, this is hard to avoid and also hard to retouch (though you could give the latter a try), but probably you should raise exposure a bit, then the currently white spots would be overexposed but the whole picture would probably look better. --Plozessor 18:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now! --Plozessor 02:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 02:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Tieso_ocelado_(Myrichthys_maculosus),_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-29,_DD_87.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger snake eel (Myrichthys maculosus), Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 12:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The picture is pretty blurry. And why the square crop ? --ZarlokX 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Why not the square crop? what is the problem with that? Please, don't move to CR right away, promote or oppose. CR requires the involvement of 2 reviewers with different opinions --Poco a poco 20:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Not sure why this nom landed here, but ok Poco a poco 11:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's seems there is too much motion blur. --Sebring12Hrs 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The eel is sufficiently sharp, for an underwater image. --Tagooty 05:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Tagooty 05:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rovesnik_on_the_Khimki_Reservoir_2023-05-21_3916.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "Rovesnik" on the Khimki reservoir. --Mike1979 Russia 07:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Other companion image is OK but in this one, there is a disturbing foreground buoy and a cluttered background behind the ship. You should move right or left, to minimize distracting elements so that the ship stands out. --GRDN711 00:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This buoy is not a problem in my eyes. -- Екатерина Борисова 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:D-6-78-134-52_Ölberg,_um_1500,_an_der_Stadtpfarrkirche_Gerolzhofen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Agony in the Garden scene at Gerolzhofen church --Plozessor 02:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I know it was unavoidable here, but I don't like the fact that the sculptures' faces are obscured by the bars. Let's discuss --Jakubhal 03:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Well, it is behind bars, what should I do? You can see the context in other pictures here.
Not every photo has to be QI. I understand there wasn’t much you could do in this case, but personally, the photo of the bars just doesn’t feel like quality to me. As a side note, I think the wider shot showing the whole setting looks better. Jakubhal 04:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That's a difficult case. The Jesus statue would have to be visible from the front, but then the apostles probably wouldn't be in the picture. Too bad. -- Spurzem 12:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Yes, the bars are disturbing and are hiding part of the faces, but this looks like the best picture one can reasonably create of this artwork. Some technical mistakes were avoided (having the bars in focus but not the artwork, or having part of this highly contrasted scene either burnt or cluttered). Maybe the photographer moving slightly right or left could have ensured that more faces were between bars than behind bars, but not sure. --Benjism89 13:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 13:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:No_Parking_on_55th_Street_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination No Parking sign on West 55th Street, Manhattan, NYC --Kritzolina 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bijay Chaurasia 10:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough, especially at right. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Unterhaid_Kirche_Grabplatte_HRS-20240407-RM-155517.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grave stone at the Catholic church of St. Barbara in Unterhaid --Ermell 07:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Looks like is a little blurry. --Phyrexian 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. Lets discuss. --Ermell 19:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Benjism89 18:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The edges on these old stones have become smooth over time, and this can be mistaken for a blurry picture. Haven't seen the old version but the current picture is good. --Plozessor 18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Botanical_Gardens,_Aburi_(P1090831).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cinnamomum verum in Aburi Botanical Gardens --MB-one 07:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    You should crop the picture. --ZarlokX 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. So why did this end up here on "CR" without any votes? The composition isn't exactly great, and the label with the description could be a bit sharper, but otherwise, it looks acceptable. --Smial 10:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • In addition to the too wide crop, the writing on the sign is too light. I don't think that it is a QI. But sometimes I can only wonder. -- Spurzem 11:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Tagooty 05:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped and tweaked exposure. Thanks for the reviews everyone. --MB-one 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ludwag_St._Johannes_Statue_HRS-20250316-RM-155622.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Side altar in the Catholic Church of St. John the Baptist in Ludwag --Ermell 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed at full size. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The altar is distorted, and the altarpiece is barely visible due to the light reflection in the upper right corner. It probably shows the announcement of the birth of Jesus to Mary. -- Spurzem 11:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Mostly because of the strong distortion (making the angels look really ugly). --Benjism89 18:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

File:মেটেমাথা_কুরা-ঈগল_(Icthyophaga_ichthyaetus),_জাতীয়_উদ্ভিদ_উদ্যান,_ঢাকা.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grey headed fish eagle. By User:Ashraf747 --RockyMasum 07:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I'm not sure how I should judge this one. On the one hand, the angle and timing is phenomenal with a background smooth as butter. On the other hand the image looks over sharpened (?) and especially his face looks way to overprocessed to give this image an easy pass (if it wasn't for this issue I think the image would be a case of insta-promote. --D-Kuru 21:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with D-Kuru. Great shot, but strongly overprocessed --Jakubhal 03:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly oversharpened, but it is an ISO 3200 tele shot that required a certain level of processing, this is still a great image and overall clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and good image though a bit dark -- Spurzem 08:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much processed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fine details destroyed by denoising, the larger contours oversharpened. Both are legitimate image enhancement techniques, but here they are unfortunately already disturbingly recognizable at A4 size, sorry. Nice lighting, and composition. --Smial 12:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with everything above : a little overprocessed and a bit dark, but still a great shot overall. --Benjism89 19:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 19:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Sierpówka_zwyczajna_w_Rżuchowie_w_województwie_świętokrzyskim,_20250421_0902_4124.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eurasian collared dove on a tree in Rżuchów, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship --Jakubhal 04:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small (1.9 MP). --Plozessor 13:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. Image is not bad (in quality) but too small. --D-Kuru 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Portland,_Oregon,_April_26,_2025_-_043.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination TriMet bus, Portland, Oregon --Another Believer 00:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 03:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Overprocessed, too tight framing --Jakubhal 05:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Those smartphone pictures are very overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Portland,_Oregon,_April_26,_2025_-_177.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rose City Food Park, Portland, Oregon --Another Believer 00:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion and overprocessed --Jakubhal 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 11:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal --Smial 12:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Célébration_du_64e_anniversaire_de_l'indépendance_du_Bénin_en_2024_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Military vehicle parked during the military parade during the celebration of the 64th anniversary of Benin's independence in 2024 at Cotonou in Benin --Adoscam (talk) 08:40, 28 avril 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I think that, unfortunately, the sharpness is not good enough here. Let's discuss --Jakubhal 10:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Benjism89 19:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 19:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Lake_Yaguarcocha_in_Cajamarca,_Peru_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Yaguarcocha in Cajabamba, Cajamarca, Peru. --Satdeep Gill 05:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality and beautiful --MB-one 10:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really ? You dn' t see the completly failed top of the mountains ? In addition, this is very overprocessed and not very sharp. Smartphone cameras aren't very good with landscapes. --Sebring12Hrs 18:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of stitching errors everywhere, noisy. Nice lighting and composition, though. --Smial 12:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems like multiple similar (but different) images combined, probably failed HDR attempt. --Plozessor 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Gudum_Baja_dancers_from_Dindori_Madhya_Pradesh,_India_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gudum Baja dancers from Dindori Madhya Pradesh --Suyash.dwivedi 18:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jamshid Nurkulov 21:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Everything looks good, need to remove CA from shoulder --Bijay Chaurasia 09:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Bijay Chaurasia. --Sebring12Hrs 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:BE_SO_Château_Noisy-Miranda_Zierelemente.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Decorative Elements in the abandoned Castle of Miranca, Belgium --Grunpfnul 18:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Can you sharpen it, and improve its categorisation - what decorative elements is it showing? --Mike Peel 17:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The blurred left pilaster is disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    The blurry Pilaster on the left side was wanted. Not every Picture should have the same Choice of Perspective --Grunpfnul 20:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose According to the description, the photo shows "decorative elements." But I essentially see damaged plaster and an electrical cable hanging out of the wall. I'm also bothered by the out-of-focus capital on the left side of the picture. Please don't take offense for saying that so harshly. -- Spurzem 09:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Abt_XGT_DSC_8292.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Abt XGT at Motorworld Region Stuttgart --Alexander-93 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 19:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose IMO too busy background with the cut heads. --Kallerna 12:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:20250412_Berufliche_Schulen_Bergsonstraße_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiral stairs at the cafe of the Vocational schools on Bergsonstraße --FlocciNivis 09:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 05:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very random composition. --Kallerna 11:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Composition works for me, but it's tilted. I'd make the wall on the right side and the power mast in the background vertical and the roof (of whatever that is on the top) horizontal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plozessor (talk • contribs)
    •  Comment ✓ Done, thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 17:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Works for me. --Benjism89 19:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 19:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Rallye_Monte-Carlo_Historique_2025,_Bad_Homburg_(P1032963).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination TV reporter at the departure of the Rallye Monte-Carlo Historique 2025 in Bad Homburg --MB-one 21:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Can you fix the perspective (particularly the background buildings)? --Mike Peel 16:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 21:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Random composition. --Kallerna 11:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    •  Question @Kallerna: could you please elaborate, what you think is "random" about this composition? --MB-one 11:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm bothered by the light on the pavement and, to some extent, on people's clothing. Also, the camera isn't easy to see. -- Spurzem 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:20210703_Epona_relief_Vicus_Schwarzenacker.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Copy of the upper third of the Epona relief found at the Vicus Schwarzenacker --FlocciNivis 13:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Is the left wall really leaning like that ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop. --Kallerna 11:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to improve on the crop and some other things on this image. Can I get a new evaluation? --FlocciNivis 19:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, though it appears to be tilted but probably the object is like that. --Plozessor 03:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me in this version Jakubhal 03:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 22:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Benjism89 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Leuven_-_Oude_Markt_-_De_Weerelt_building_-_Atlas_carrying_a_globe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Atlas carrying a globe on top of a building --Romainbehar 05:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left part of the window is out of focus. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 08:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see any big problems. Lvova 07:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition (with the sharp angle and the crop) is a bit questionable, but the technical quality is absolutely acceptable. Overall over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)~
  •  Support As Atlas at the top is the main subject of the image and is in focus, I see no problem with the window being out out focus even I would have mape the crop a little bit tighter on Atlas --D-Kuru 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technical quality is acceptable, but wrong composition IMO : the crop should either be much smaller (using a larger focal length), or go down to include the bottom of the gable. --Benjism89 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 24 Apr → Fri 02 May
  • Fri 25 Apr → Sat 03 May
  • Sat 26 Apr → Sun 04 May
  • Sun 27 Apr → Mon 05 May
  • Mon 28 Apr → Tue 06 May
  • Tue 29 Apr → Wed 07 May
  • Wed 30 Apr → Thu 08 May
  • Thu 01 May → Fri 09 May
  • Fri 02 May → Sat 10 May