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 July 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 July 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 July 28 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]] 14:44, 28 July 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).


July 28, 2025

[edit]

July 27, 2025

[edit]

July 26, 2025

[edit]

July 25, 2025

[edit]

July 24, 2025

[edit]

July 23, 2025

[edit]

July 22, 2025

[edit]

July 21, 2025

[edit]

July 20, 2025

[edit]

July 19, 2025

[edit]

July 18, 2025

[edit]

July 17, 2025

[edit]

July 16, 2025

[edit]

July 15, 2025

[edit]

July 14, 2025

[edit]

July 13, 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:Вологда_-_Ц._Иоанна_Златоуста_1.jpg

[edit]

File:Palazzo_dello_Spagnolo,_Nápoles,_Italia,_2023-03-25,_DD_139-141_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo dello Spagnolo, Naples, Italy --Poco a poco 07:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but I disagree. The picture is still amazing and very useful, but the architecture and the other elements are extremely distorted due to PC. Not QI for me. --Phyrexian 20:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Piazzetta_delle_Chiacchiere_-_Poppi_(Arezzo).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A place where people often meet to chat, exchanging trivial things, chatting about this and that, and maybe even a little gossip. The Piazzetta delle chiacchiere aims to encourage reflection through various stimuli such as books, songs, poems, workshops, conference series, and various types of gatherings. -- Anna.Massini 19:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  • Discussion
    Strong purple CAs at the right top. --Sebring12Hrs 20:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC) ✓ Done I removed the chromatic aberrations, but also cut off a section at the top, as it wasn't good after the changes. Consider whether it's still OK. Thanks. Anna.Massini 08:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini

File:Работа_мастерицы_Ярославской_области_Шакуриной_Анастасии_111.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bed linen with crocheted details --Lvova 07:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose I don't really like the photo. I find it a bit boring, to be honest. --S. Perquin 17:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Probably, but creativity isn't a goal here. --Lvova 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't know that! Sorry, then I withdraw my vote! --S. Perquin 22:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What about the right crop ? The pillow/cushion is cut. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
    It is in purpose, not to make a big dark area; but ok, oppose here is fair enough. Lvova 17:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Cirsium_arvense_2025-07-23-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowering field thistle --ReneeWrites 13:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 13:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a great photo from an aesthetic point of view, but there's not much that's sharp and in focus. So please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image and sharp enough -- Spurzem 06:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Smial 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Cirsium_arvense_2025-07-23-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowering field thistle --ReneeWrites 13:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 13:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a great photo from an aesthetic point of view, but there's not much that's sharp and in focus. So please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and sharp enough as I think -- Spurzem 06:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. .oO(A4 print size criterion) --Smial 13:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Bratislava,_2018_(16).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hviezdoslavovo námestie (Hviezdoslav's Square), Bratislava --Draceane 10:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    CAs... --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Draceane 21:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but there are a lot of CAs again. --Sebring12Hrs 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    Another try to fix the CA. --Draceane 08:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful impression of this street. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 06:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Few CAs at left, but this is better. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:FES, Electric vehicle charging station, Wiesbaden (LRM 20250711 183544).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Electric vehicle charging station of Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH in Wiesbaden --MB-one 10:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 11:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    * Oppose Good picture, but vertical lines of the right side are tilted, sorry --Lmbuga 11:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It was photographed from a short distance, looking down, so the column appeared trapezoidal. Nevertheless, I think the image is good. -- Spurzem 06:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)~
  • I don't doubt that I may be confused or not know everything, but it's not that the column looks trapezoidal, it's that it is trapezoidal. Buildings of the right are tilted. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 14:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC).
  • I could try to improve it if MB-one accepts it. What I have done could always be reversed.--Lmbuga 14:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. --MB-one 19:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness and distorted. PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 09:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
    Ok I cancel my vote. --Sebring12Hrs 08:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. --Lmbuga 13:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Female_Latrodectus_tredecimguttatus_with_2_egg_sacs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Female European black widow with her egg sacs. ---0959kedi 08:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I am not able to see the spider's eyes, sorry. How many do the spider has? Six, eight? --Lmbuga 12:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Lmbuga: Thank you for the review. Latrodectus has 8 eyes in 2 rows. There's a beautiful diagram of their eye arrangement by ThatSpiderByte --0959kedi 17:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I see them now, but, sorry, the detail is not good IMO. And the space (jar or container) in which the spider is placed is annoying. I'm not the best person to say this, but insects or arachnids should not be disturbed to take a photograph. I found out late.--Lmbuga 14:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga, not enough details and disturbing elements. --Benjism89 17:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Podłęże_train_stop,_view_to_E,_Kolejowa_Street,_Podłęże,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podłęże train stop, view to E, Kolejowa Street, Podłęże, Poland --Igor123121 08:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The sky shows vignetting, related maybe to the position of the Sun. Otherwise good. I checked also the verticals and the correction was quite good, if you performed it. --Harlock81 12:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Harlock81: Is it OK now? --Igor123121 14:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Igor123121: There are white halos close to the upper corners. The borders of the sky were more uniform in the previous version. --Harlock81 05:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Harlock81: Restored Igor123121 07:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! Good now.  Support --Harlock81 07:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Czesław_Marchewczyk_square,_view_from_W,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Czesław Marchewczyk square, view from W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Right side is leaning in, probably also tilted --Poco a poco 06:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done Is it okay now? Igor123121 17:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    That's better. Please, add at least one existing category and overall is the detail level not so good, can you sharpen it? --Poco a poco 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done Igor123121 08:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, category is there, thank you, but the sharpening not. I see no new version of the file. --Poco a poco 08:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done --Igor123121 15:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but it is clearly leaning, even the modern building is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: , @Poco a poco: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosensteintunnel_(2021)_1X7A0042.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosensteintunnel Stuttgart --Alexander-93 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Very distorted and PC is needed at left. --Sebring12Hrs 20:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the image was taken with a fisheye lens. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 12:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Szczepańska_Street,_view_to_NW,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Szczepańska Street, view to NW, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose A bit leaning at right. --Sebring12Hrs 19:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    And this is not very sharp regarding the camera. --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Restless_bush_cricket_(81229).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Restless bush cricket --Rhododendrites 00:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 02:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depth of field is too shallow and the legs on the subject are out of focus on the left side of the image. --E bailey 05:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Shallow depth of field is normal with close-up photography like this. The most important parts are in focus (head, feelers, most of the body & hind legs) and incredibly sharp, this is easily good enough for QI. ReneeWrites 14:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per ReneeWrites. I also think it's a QI. --0959kedi 07:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not QI for me: It's not a detail, and the antennas are cut. The hind legs are very deficient--Lmbuga 01:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 11:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Plexippus_paykulli_subadult_male_anterior.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sub-adult male Plexippus paykulli on a tree. --0959kedi 10:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depth of field is too shallow. Far side of subject is out of focus. --E bailey 05:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review! I wanted to focus on the face of the spider instead of the entire spider. --0959kedi 08:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, that's how I understood the intention of the image. The subject of the image is the face of the spider. For me, it's a QI. --Romzig 06:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, acceptable DoF for the purpose. --Plozessor 07:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good, but DoF--Lmbuga (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 11:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Euploea_core_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Euploea core in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please add location in the image page. Also gender if known. Otherwise good. --Tagooty 09:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    I have added location in the image page but sorry don't know about the gender. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. @Tisha Mukherjee: There was only a "Comment" so your response should have been "Comment" rather than "Discuss". "Discuss" is only if there are conflicting votes. --Tagooty 12:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support -- Giles Laurent 07:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is out of focus and there is a blurred branche which is disturbing just in front of the subject. --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-13_GX6-101904_Achim-Lammerts_Kandel-Waldfriedhof.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The forest cemetery in Kandel (Palatinate). --Syntaxys 05:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good image, but specific categories about the subjects are missing --MB-one 09:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dr. Thomas Liptak 14:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to disagree until the categories are fixed --MB-one 15:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay, I lost track of the image. It has now been categorized under “Bienwald” and “Woodland Cemeteries”. Isn't it enough that it's located in Kandel (Palatinate)? --Syntaxys 14:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Euploea_core_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Euploea core in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Please add location in the image page. Also gender if known. Otherwise good (crop would focus attention).. --Tagooty 10:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I agree cropping would be better. --0959kedi 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Tisha Mukherjee and 0959kedi: Temporary oppose to allow the nominator to address my comments above. Will change my vote after done. --Tagooty 03:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 00:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

File:20230317_Helmut-Schmidt-Haus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View across a meadow to the Helmut-Schmidt-House in Hamburg --FlocciNivis 17:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be a bit to blurry at right side. Not so bad, but I ask for more opinions, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 16:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Interesting image, but the right side is really blurry. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 11:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Assam_macaque_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Macaca assamensis in Latpanchar, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 09:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great image but noisy and subject isn't sharp. --0959kedi 16:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy due ISO 6400. I think neither f/8 nor 1/500s were necessary here; should have used lower f-number and longer exposure with lower ISO. --Plozessor 14:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Full sensor resolution allows perfect a4 size print, despite the somewhat high noise level. I don't think, this lighting situation would allow long exposure time and/or wide open aperture. --Smial 17:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. Longer exposure photographing animals in the wild is not a realistic option. ReneeWrites 23:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 09:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --0959kedi 07:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Интерьеры_особняка_Мусиных-Пушкиных_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interiors of the Musin-Pushkin mansion --Lvova 19:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Horizontals should be horizontal. --Sebring12Hrs 19:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    I am not completely sure what you are referring to. The upper edge of the central bookshelf is already horizontal to within 0.3–0.5°, further rotation would distort the ceiling ornamentation. --Lvova 15:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with Sebring; the ornament is not flush. If you compare the two flourishes at either side, the left-hand one is about fifteen pixels lower than the right-hand one. Straightening would also help center and crop, which I think would help composition.Crisco 1492 12:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    1° just gives -15px to another side. Lvova 16:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rotate the image will not distort anything. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Тверская_4_СПб_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tverskaya 4, the decoration --Lvova 10:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I don't like the cut at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 23:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    What's about now? --Lvova 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's fine, as the shot captures the entire decoration under the portal. Therefore, I'm asking for other opinions. Anna.Massini 08:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Oppose Sorry but horizontals don't seem to be horizontal here. When you look at the windows, you can see that is bent. And the sharpness is not at his best at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 20 Jul → Mon 28 Jul
  • Mon 21 Jul → Tue 29 Jul
  • Tue 22 Jul → Wed 30 Jul
  • Wed 23 Jul → Thu 31 Jul
  • Thu 24 Jul → Fri 01 Aug
  • Fri 25 Jul → Sat 02 Aug
  • Sat 26 Jul → Sun 03 Aug
  • Sun 27 Jul → Mon 04 Aug
  • Mon 28 Jul → Tue 05 Aug