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 September 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 September 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 September 12 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]] 04:54, 12 September 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).


September 12, 2025

[edit]

September 11, 2025

[edit]

September 10, 2025

[edit]

September 9, 2025

[edit]

September 8, 2025

[edit]

September 7, 2025

[edit]

September 6, 2025

[edit]

September 5, 2025

[edit]

September 4, 2025

[edit]

September 3, 2025

[edit]

September 2, 2025

[edit]

September 1, 2025

[edit]

August 31, 2025

[edit]

August 30, 2025

[edit]

August 29, 2025

[edit]

August 27, 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:Escinco_(Trachylepis_striata),_parque_nacional_del_lago_Nakuru,_Kenia,_2024-05-18,_DD_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination African striped skink (Trachylepis striata), Lake Nakuru National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 03:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The head is of very poor quality. I'm sorry, but being such a good photographer as you are, I don't understand why you would nominate this. I can't take exceptional photos, but you can. I hope you give us something more.--Lmbuga 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • You almost made me feel bad about this nom. I do believe though that latest now, after some improvements, it's over the QI bar, please, let's talk. --Poco a poco 05:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have never wanted to hurt you. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I can't review it on my mobile. I'll do it later.-Lmbuga (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Much better. It has improved and now seems acceptable to me, although not at the exceptional level of what you do. Perhaps the problem with the photo is mine, as I have enormous expectations of everything you share. Be that as it may, a photo should not cause disappointment, especially for someone like you who contributes so much. Thank you, sincerely.--Lmbuga 14:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суворовский_проспект_3-5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Suvorovsky 3 --Lvova 09:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacks detail --Poco a poco 15:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This image lacks depth a bit IMO, but all details are clearly visible here. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Lohagad_Fort_Narayan_Darwaza_2.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Parque_Estadual_Encontro_das_Águas_-_Giles_Laurent_(70).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roadside hawk on a Pink Ipê tree in Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas, Brazil. By User:Giles Laurent --Rodrigo.Argenton 17:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good attempt but the out-of-focus flower in front of the bird is too distracting. --GRDN711 20:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a bird in it's natural environment. It is just a single leave and I do not think it is distracting as it is not on the bird face which is still perfectly visible -- --Giles Laurent 09:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Vote annulled, Photographer cannot vote on his own picture. --Plozessor 03:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Giles Laurent. Lvova 22:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is it really possible to vote for own pictures, even if they were nominated by someone else? It's definitely possible in FP project, but here it's prohibited as far as I know. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • No, "Any registered user ... other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination." --Plozessor 03:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the picture though. It's unusual with that blurry flower in foreground, but somehow the composition works. --Plozessor (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

File:The_Pipers_of_Vill.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village tribes play flutes in harmony, dressed in colorful attire during Ger Festival. By User:Chattopad --Gnoeee 06:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It's fun, but people are distorted. --Lvova 19:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Vsatinet 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, this photo was taken with a wide-angle lens from a close distance and has noticeable distortions. But in this case, IMHO, it is an appropriate artistic technique. These distortions give an additional impression to this high-quality photo. Vsatinet 09:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think I'll get much support for this, but per Lvova, very strong distortion. That said, the sky and image are unbeatable. --Lmbuga 17:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Pixelpeeping: some artifacts and some burnt reflections. --Smial 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. New review. For consistency's sake: I cannot say "the sky and image are unbeatable" and not promote it.--Lmbuga 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose heavy perspective warp.--Peulle 15:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support not that bad. I like the composition. --Mosbatho 19:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:4-я_Советская_улица,_11_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 4 Sovetskaya 11 --Lvova 08:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The image lacks detail; it is difficult to make out the stucco decorations around the windows. However, these are important elements of the building. If the image is also present in the raw data, it is unlikely that this can be repaired. Pronounced CAs at the edge of the roof. --Syntaxys 08:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
    Will try to fix CA anyway. Lvova 11:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    Well, no, I tried and cannot fix it (mostly because it is a real sun reflection from the surface). Lvova 20:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Worse pictures from the same user has been accepted as QI, this one really is sharp to me and perspective is good. --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
    An argument abour 'worse pictures' looks weird for me, but yes, sometimes I nominate images myself in the spirit of "well, if other users do it", not in the spirit "I am sure it's perfect". Lvova 11:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, if I hurt your feelings, I preferred to speak without filter. You take good architectural photos, keep it up. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 06:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, halo (white halo or clear halo) at the top (edge) of the roof--Lmbuga 02:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. And: It is really difficult to tell what the camera (or post-processing) has optimized away by removing noise and what the sharpening (or post-processing) has added. In any case, the result looks strangely unbalanced. Twelve or more years ago, this was already possible with mid-range DSLRs in better quality. --Smial 12:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суздаль_2025,_Входоиерусалимская_церковь_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem (Suzdal) --Vsatinet 21:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, it seems overprocesed. Too much noise and chromatic noise. Sorry, it's not IQ, clearly. --Lmbuga 02:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think you mean "under-processed" rather than "overprocessed", since this image has not had any noise reduction applied. Now I have done this, although I'm not sure if the image can be "quality". --Vsatinet 20:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You're right that the previous comment isn't appropriate. ‘Overprocessed’ isn't the right word. Perhaps ‘artifacts’ would be better. Something is happening in the non-luminous areas of the picture. I am sure that I am not always right. The best thing is to discuss it and let others help me avoid making a mistake and help you. Whatever the outcome, thank you for sharing your pictures.--Lmbuga 12:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1st version: Noise. 2nd version: denoising artifacts. Why the h*** ISO 6400? --Smial 14:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree. High ISO speed to avoid shaking blur, as it is already dark at this time of day in winter in these latitudes. Of course, in these cases it's better to have a tripod, but... -- Vsatinet (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I am always willing to accept a certain amount of image noise when circumstances require it. Be it indoor sports, theater performances, concerts, even landscapes, when moving objects are important to the image and short exposure times are necessary. But I don't think that was the case with this subject; the church isn't running around, after all. --Smial 19:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 20:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Grotte_der_Egeria,_Wörlitz_(August_2023)_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grotto of Egeria in Wörlitz Park --Romzig 12:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image quality is good, but the composition is not. When taking the photo, the column on the right should have been avoided. Now, if possible (I think it's very difficult), it needs to be cropped out. --Lmbuga 22:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reviews. I've uploaded a new version. --Romzig 08:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. I am not opposed, but I am not really convinced.--Lmbuga (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Тбилиси,_собака_на_Ботанической_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • I see no prohibition in the rules to nominate images, which may form a series, but are not identical. We have a lot of such series here, so please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am making this comment because I need to know if I am confused. This is what the QIC guidelines say:"Normally there should not be multiple featured pictures that are too similar to each other. The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the finest images—the top fraction of a percent. As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted. The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances. There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images and there is no formal mechanism for delisting quality images."
The text is well written?, or where it says ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images’, it should say ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar images’ that can be QI? or ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar Quality images’. Furthermore, writing ‘The purpose of the Featured image status...’ is not the same as writing ‘The purpose of the featured image status...’. Quality images have featured picture status, but they are not Featured pictures. --Lmbuga 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
In English it seems very clear, but those slight inaccuracies mean that the Portuguese translation does not convey the same meaning. I read QIguidelines in Portuguese.--Lmbuga 13:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral--Lmbuga 13:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 22:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суздаль_2025,_Входоиерусалимская_церковь_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem (Suzdal) --Vsatinet 21:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 00:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many dust spots on the sky. So many that it seems difficult to solve, sorry. --Lmbuga 02:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to find and fix obvious dust spots, and I think you don't mean spots of dust on the matrix, but traces of snowflakes that got into the frame. In the frame you can see that it was snowing at that time. -- Vsatinet 10:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is just snow falling from the sky, no dust spots to me too. But it seems the building is leaning, isn't it ? --Sebring12Hrs 20:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I've seen snow about five times in my life, at most. I wasn't aware of the impact of snow in a photo. Your picture is good. --Lmbuga 21:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I think I have exaggerated. I have seen snow-covered roofs, I have seen sleet falling, but I have never seen it snow.--Lmbuga 21:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted clockwise.--Peulle 07:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
 Comment You are right. Fixed, Vsatinet 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --E bailey 03:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Balmoral_Mounds_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balmoral Mounds historic marker side 1 in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. --Ktkvtsh 04:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed, thoughts? --Aethonatic 11:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • This is how my phone took the image. I didn’t edit it any further. --Ktkvtsh 15:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 15:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Walk_through_the_historic_settlements_of_Katowice_at_Wikimania_2024_(20).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Commercial van at the historic settlements of Katowice --Gnoeee 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Little noise but QI in my opinion --Cvmontuy 01:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Heylenny 20:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes noisy or not very sharp, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 12:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 22:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Værøy_Måstadvika_lub_2025-07-23_img01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View over the Måstadvika on Værøy in Nordland, Norway --L. Beck 13:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. For me, this photo would be perfect with a little more light and with the boat on the right completely visible, but QI IMO --Lmbuga 13:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Two dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 19:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I didn't notice the two dust spots. With them, it can't be QI IMO.--Lmbuga 05:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Sebring12Hrs and Lmbuga: Dust spots removed by copy and past of close portions of the sky. Please, check the result. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment THanks, but there is a strange shadow at the upper right corner. And per Milseburg, it is a bit dark. --Sebring12Hrs 20:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Milseburg 15:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 15:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Værøy_Moskenstraumen_lub_2025-07-23_img01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Værøy across the Moskenstraumen to Mosken and Moskenesøy in Nordland, Norway --L. Beck 13:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 13:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots again. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Several dust spots removed by copy and paste of close portions of the sky. Please, Sebring12Hrs, check the result also here. --Harlock81 14:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks but it remains two dust spots. See note. --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done and thanks for the note. I didn't notice them. Also here there is the dark halo at both upper corners, even though less obvious. --Harlock81 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

File:D-6-5928-0002_Turmhügel_Hundsrück_(Wülflingen)_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Location of former motte-and-bailey castle Hundsrück near Wülflingen (archaeological monument) --Plozessor 02:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, sky on the very far left looks too artificial too me.--Milseburg 09:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the light is a bit harsh at the upper left in the sky, but the compo and the sharpness are very good. --Sebring12Hrs 20:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the turquoise tone but the clouds are blown too. --Milseburg 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per milseburg. --Smial 09:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg and Smial: Improved the left part of the sky, please have another look. --Plozessor
    •  Comment I don't see any real improvement. Now the banding is even more pronounced. Although the very first version of the panorama also suffered from overexposed clouds on the left edge, the sky and landscape were otherwise still reasonably natural in color. This had the side effect that the color distortion into turquoise was hardly noticeable at a glance. --Smial 15:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
      • @Milseburg and Smial: Now I just cloned another part of the sky to fix the corner, what do you think? --Plozessor 03:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
        • There is a strong edge to the left of the cloud on the far left.--Milseburg 11:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
          • @Milseburg: Couldn't see that but did some more retouching ... --Plozessor 18:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture is beautiful, but if we divide the image into three parts, between the left and center sections, at the height of the trees, there is a vertical color change in the sky. The trees on the left have an anomalous bluish border (edge), while those on the right are perfect.--Lmbuga 05:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm sure about the vertical change, but as for the edges, that may just be my opinion.--Lmbuga 05:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've marked what I mean, see notes. --Milseburg 21:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg: Danke, hätte ich (auch mit deinen Hinweisen) ohne massive Kontrastverstärkung nicht gesehen. Hab jetzt fünf solche Kanten entfernt, schau bitte nochmal! --Plozessor 02:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC).
  • Languages have a social role. They serve to welcome and to marginalise. I was thinking of voting in favour of promoting this image, but while I can be asked to use an automatic translator, I cannot be forced to do so: I am leaving this conversation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmbuga (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8. September 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, was this Milseburg? I was under the impression that you're a German speaker. My comment was: "Thank you, even with your hints I wouldn't have seen that without significant contrast boost. I removed five such edges now, please have another look!" --Plozessor 03:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment But now the sky looks posterized. --Sebring12Hrs 22:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sky is posterized (per Sebring12Hrs)--Lmbuga 02:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a nice picture, but the sky has color variations and is posterized.--Lmbuga 02:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs, Lmbuga, Milseburg, and Smial: One more try, please have another look. --Plozessor 03:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It has improved a lot, and I'm glad. There may be some posterisation at the top of the sky, but I have limited knowledge of photography, so don't pay too much attention to me. The picture makes up for it, IMO. It's a good picture.--Lmbuga 04:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now you've edited the sky so heavily that you can't really call it real anymore. The last edit even removed two clouds in the right half. Instead of one of them, a paler patch remained in the sky. The clouds on the left retained a greenish hue. I can't agree that it's a QI, but it seems that it could pass now.--Milseburg 14:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Halos/CA between the trees and the blue sky--Peulle 07:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 04 Sep → Fri 12 Sep
  • Fri 05 Sep → Sat 13 Sep
  • Sat 06 Sep → Sun 14 Sep
  • Sun 07 Sep → Mon 15 Sep
  • Mon 08 Sep → Tue 16 Sep
  • Tue 09 Sep → Wed 17 Sep
  • Wed 10 Sep → Thu 18 Sep
  • Thu 11 Sep → Fri 19 Sep
  • Fri 12 Sep → Sat 20 Sep