Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 23 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]] 11:37, 23 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 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 14, 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 7, 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: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)
  • Discussion 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)
 Opposeper Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_люк_на_Манаса_01.jpg

[edit]

 Opposeper Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_люк_на_Манаса_02.jpg

[edit]

 Opposeper Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:53, 23 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)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 06:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Technical quality is giid 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)
  •  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)

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)
     OpposeMoving 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)

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)

File:2024_Kolonia_Laski,_kolumna_maryjna_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kolonia Laski, Maria column 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     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)

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)

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)
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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:52, 23 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматинский_ботанический_сад,_тюльпаны_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tulips in Almaty botanical garden, Kazakhstan. --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 04:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not detailed/sharp enough. --Plozessor 04:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматинский_ботанический_сад,_тюльпаны_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Casa_Gourgion,_Mdina,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-25,_DD_137.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Casa Gourgion, Mdina, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 07:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A small part of the building is cropped out on the right. I assume it's not fixable --Benjism89 10:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you assumed too much, ✓ new version uploaded, are you in a hurry to close noms? --Poco a poco 21:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like discussion. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. Your pictures are always perfectly cropped so I assumed that such an obvious issue was due to a too tight crop in the original RAW file. I was wrong, sorry ! --Benji 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • No problem, but even then I could have focused on some part of the building cropping it and made out of it a QI. There are always ways :) Poco a poco 09:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Benji 09:30, 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)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:57, 23 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Assumption_in_La_Loubiere_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption in La Loubiere, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sort of overexposed sky. --Kallerna 05:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • This bad weather sky is very bright, but I'd like to know what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 12:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CA at the top of the tower. Otherwise I'd try to mask the sky and make it darker and/or the foreground brighter. --Plozessor 05:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:01, 23 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Cassanego,_chiesa_di_Sant'Andrea_by_drone_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drone shot of Saint Andrew church in Borso del Grappa (TV, Italy) --Syrio 07:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GiovanniPen 23:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicit opposing vote added --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, probably fixable. --Plozessor 05:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Kallerna and Plozessor: thanks, better now? --Syrio 11:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматинский_ботанический_сад,_магнолия_09.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 05:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Растения_с_Тропического_маршрута_Ботанического_сада_Петра_Великого_176.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea Yellow Sensation --Lvova 08:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad crop, so-so sharpness. --Kallerna 05:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The Motif is sharp.--KaiBorgeest 21:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 22 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)
  • Discussion
     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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dolmen_de_la_Fabiere_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dolmen de la Fabiere in commune of La Cavalerie, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. It's blurry. There's no clarity at all.--26D 08:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The foreground seems more in focus than the background, but I would like to hear what others have to say. --Sebring12Hrs 20:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Subject is sharp enough and DoF is adequate, but there is purple CA in the upper left corner. Otherwise would support. --Plozessor 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Stelvio_Pass_Bolzano_side_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eastern ramp of Stelvio Pass --Kallerna 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great picture but the motorcyclist is irritating --Lukas Raich 15:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lukas Raich: Change template to Discuss if you want to start a discussion. Do not reset it to Nomination. --Jakubhal 06:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added the implicit oppose to his vote. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}
  •  Support There are actually two people visible, but none of them is disturbing the composition IMO, especially as the motorcyclist is facing away from the photographer and is sharp. --Plozessor 03:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that the motorcyclist is not a problem here. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:20, 22 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial,_Heidelberg_(P1180506).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Heidelberg --MB-one 14:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Comment White balance is off, shifted towards green --Jakubhal 18:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose As the comment before --Lukas Raich 15:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak supportNice view, although some parts of the photo are not completely in focus, such as the vegetation on the bottom right. Anna.Massini 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 15:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:15, 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)
  • Discussion
    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)

File:Loos_1_residence_fleming.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apartement building, Résidence Fleming 1, in Loos, France --Velvet 06:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too distorted due to perspective correction, and wires are very disturbing. --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова + strong halo effect. --Kallerna 05:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Nad_Vodárnou,_Ludgeřovice_2025-05_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ludgeřovice, Opava District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 07:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 08:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a lot of dust spots on the sky that should be fixed first --Jakubhal 18:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal, and PC is needed a bit. --Sebring12Hrs 11:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Motortreff_Bella_Italia_2024,_Munich_(P1190251).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lamborghini Gallardo --MB-one 18:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support In my opinion, there is too much empty space at the bottom. Still the photo is good enough for QI --Jakubhal 18:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow in the area of ​​the rear wheel is extremely distracting. Also, the background doesn't match the car at all. Please don't take offense: This isn't QI. -- Spurzem 11:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't really understand the criteria by which car photos are judged here, but this picture looks like a scene from a steampunk movie, it's interesting and not trivial. Also its technical quality is good enough for QI as far as I can see. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem + "This file has no description, and may be lacking other information." --—kallerna (talk)
  •  Support The rear is a bit in the shadow, but overall good. --Sebring12Hrs 11:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support disturbing shadow in the rear, otherwise OK --KaiBorgeest 20:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:37, 21 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:20250605_field_sparrow_suffield_wma_PD204762.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Field Sparrow. Suffield Wildlife Management Area. Suffield, CT USA --Pdanese 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:34, 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 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For me a bit over-sharpened, but no issue with depth of fields - eyes have the same level of sharpness than the rest of bird --Jakubhal 08:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Removed one oft two "pro" votes ;-) --Smial 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Oh, sorry, and thanks for correcting that Jakubhal 14:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Jakubhal. --Smial 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal. --Harlock81 08:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:34, 19 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-winged_swallow_(Tachycineta_albiventer)_Rio_Napo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-winged swallow (Tachycineta albiventer) --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 08:41, 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 05:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A tiny bit oversharpened, but excellent composition and nice lighting. --Smial 12:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial Jakubhal 04:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are issues with the background, it's oversharpened/overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:49, 21 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:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 11:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality ! Very natural and not oversharpened. --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality ! Very natural and not oversharpened. --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 21 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)
  • Discussion
  • 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 19 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)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Talsperre_Wippra_(Juni_2025)_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Talsperre Wippra - Lake. --Romzig 19:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad image quality --Remontees 22:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline indeed (ok to me), but I want to know what others think.. --Sebring12Hrs 16:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support - Highlights are slightly blown, but I think this is a good viewCrisco 1492 10:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Crisco 1492 10:43, 21 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: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Parque_das_Serras_do_Porto_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Serras do Porto Park --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Blue (empty) upper left corner, also tilted. Noise/sharpness is borderline but probably still acceptable. --Plozessor 03:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Corrected Perspective -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI added the category Natural parks in Portugal Anna.Massini 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is borderline and in addition, no category for location.... --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added category -- Petnog 11:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. For me it is OK now.--KaiBorgeest 12:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 16 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Lvova 20:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 15 Jun → Mon 23 Jun
  • Mon 16 Jun → Tue 24 Jun
  • Tue 17 Jun → Wed 25 Jun
  • 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