Butun axtardiqlarinizi tapmaq ucun buraya: DAXIL OLUN
  Mp4 Mp3 Axtar Yukle
  Video Axtar Yukle
  Shekil Axtar Yukle
  Informasiya Melumat Axtar
  Hazir Inshalar Toplusu
  AZERI CHAT + Tanishliq
  1-11 Sinif Derslikler Yukle
  Saglamliq Tibbi Melumat
  Whatsapp Plus Yukle(Yeni)

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 04 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]] 09:10, 4 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 4, 2025

[edit]

July 3, 2025

[edit]

July 2, 2025

[edit]

July 1, 2025

[edit]

June 30, 2025

[edit]

June 29, 2025

[edit]

June 28, 2025

[edit]

June 27, 2025

[edit]

June 26, 2025

[edit]

June 25, 2025

[edit]

June 24, 2025

[edit]

June 23, 2025

[edit]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

June 21, 2025

[edit]

June 20, 2025

[edit]

June 19, 2025

[edit]

June 18, 2025

[edit]

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:Hydromil-Wasserwerfer_der_Volkspolizei.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Hydromil water cannon of the GDR People's Policeon display in a museum. --Mosbatho 16:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Part of the vehicle is hidden, which could have been avoided by moving one step right. Also issues with WB, small CAs and those disturbing highlights. Sorry --Benjism89 17:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is simply not true that the entire vehicle could have been depicted if only a sideways step had been taken. The exhibits were too close together in there. The CA is really microscopic, the WB is difficult because it was a bad mixture of artificial light, daylight and halogen light, I think this is a quite good result without having it looked too unnatural. And these “disturbing highlights” are simply skylights in the rooftop that do not affect the exhibit shown. --Mosbatho 18:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect, but IMO acceptable for the difficult situation. --Plozessor 07:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition and unnatural colors, especially the yellow component is too strong. -- Spurzem 08:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Taranto_-_San_Domenico_Maggiore_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Taranto (Apulia, Italy) - Saint Dominic church - Portal --Benjism89 05:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too bright. But it can be improved as I think. -- Spurzem 11:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Benjism89 17:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still too bright, and blown highlights, see other pictures of that church for comparision. --Plozessor 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Taranto_-_San_Domenico_Maggiore_-_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Taranto (Apulia, Italy) - Saint Dominic church - Rose window on the façade --Benjism89 05:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --TorinoDoc 07:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Too bright. But it can be improved as I think. -- Spurzem 11:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version. --Benjism89 17:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Ama_Dablam_under_a_Painted_Sky.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ama Dablam illuminated by the last light of dusk. By User:Megaurab09 --UnpetitproleX 04:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. I expect overall more sharpness in the full resolution. --Milseburg 13:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 11:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, even at low resolution (probably 1/60 s was too long for the drone, should probably have used higher ISO instead). Also a bit noisy. --Plozessor 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:20221016_Alter_Friedhof_Ulm_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Gravestone on the old cemetery in Ulm --FlocciNivis 09:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but it seems to me that tree trunk and leaves are too bright, almost blown out. Is it good fior QI? I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
implicite oppose --Smial 12:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Just repeat for others:
    • The histogram shows the following:
      • The majority of pixels are concentrated in the shadows and midtones (the left and central range of the histogram).
      • There is a slight peak at the far right end, especially in the red channel — this indicates the presence of a few bright areas, but not critical overexposure.
      • There is no large peak "clipped" to the right edge, which usually signals heavy overexposure (when details are completely lost in white).
    • Conclusion: the image contains some bright spots (sunlight on the leaves and the stone), but there is no significant overexposure. The exposure balance is generally well preserved. Lvova 06:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me. Yes, there are small burnt areas, but that cannot really be avoided in the situation unless with HDR, which again doesn't work without a tripod. The strong contrasts, caused by the weather and light situation, create a unique atmosphere that I like. --Plozessor 09:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. Although the burnt lights are not very large, they do stand out and particularly affect the tomb as the main motif. --Smial 12:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Common_emerald_dove_(Chalcophaps_indica),_NBG,_Bangladesh.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica), NBG, Bangladesh. By User:A. H. M Ibnul Arabi --Moheen 08:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It doesn't really look sharp to me, please, let's dicuss --Poco a poco 18:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Added implicit oppose. --Plozessor 04:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partly not sharp and strange effects at the tail, probably the dove moved during exposure. Other pictures of this series are better. --Plozessor 04:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_la_Asunción_de_María,_Mġarr,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-25,_DD_170.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption, Mġarr, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 11:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 12:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Both towers are badly distorted and make the whole building look very unnatural - judging by other people's pictures in the category. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, here in this image the PC looks natural for me. Please discuss --Syntaxys 03:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 06:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's quite simple: in order to obtain the correct perspective when shooting, the image axis must be exactly in the vertical center. As this is not achieved in most cases and you have to choose a shooting location that is too low, the captured objects taper towards the top and the perspective “tilts backwards”.
    This can be easily compensated for digitally, but if, for example, if circles are in the upper part of the image, they are always displayed elliptically. If you now pull the entire object into the correct perspective, these partial elements look unnatural squeezed.
    However, this is not the case with this picture, even the rounding of the dome still looks natural as it does not represent a complete circle. For me, the perspective correction in this picture is balanced.
    Tip for such shots: Choose the greatest possible distance to the object and shoot with a long focal length. --Syntaxys (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not thrilled. The light isn't the most pleasant, the towers appear unnaturally distorted, and the image is too tightly cropped at the bottom. -- Spurzem 09:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 15:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Oppose Perspective isn't great, compare with c:File:Church 10 (6952016305).jpg for example. Also the upper part is out of focus and there are halos on the left side. --Plozessor 04:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure about the comparison, the image you linked lacks a perspective correction Poco a poco 19:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Hongqi_H9_with_Shandong_plates.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Hongqi H9 with a Chinese national emblem on the front grille (indicating that an important official is seated inside the car), performing a U-turn Benlisquare 07:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose The main subject is too much in shadow, in contrast to the partially bright background. So, in my opinion, it's not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The shades of colour on the vehicle seems to match the promotional image on the official manufacturer's website, I think. So, the pedestrian crossing is mostly covered by sunlight, and the car hasn't entered the shade provided by the buildings yet. Benlisquare 11:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the picture is very good and the car is properly exposed; however, the picture is tilted/rotated as can be seen from the background. Would support if fixed. --Plozessor 04:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Done, uploaded new version with rotation applied to counteract the tilt. --benlisquareTalkContribs 07:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Plozessor 04:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 09:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Podzamek,_mauzoleum_rodu_von_Magnis_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podzamek, the mausoleum of the von Magnis family 3 --Jacek Halicki 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • CA in the leaves (fixable). --Plozessor 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Strubbl 21:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is still there. --Plozessor 03:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Sardunya–IMG_7350.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Geranium flower in Turkey. Kızıl 18:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. This looks like a Pelargonium species, not like a Geranium --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 19:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Baspa_Valley_under_snow_(pano),_Himachal_Pradesh,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baspa Valley under snow, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India. --UnpetitproleX 10:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 15:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too unsharp on both sides. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low I'm wondering how it could passed FP. --Milseburg 12:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, it got 8 support votes and 1 oppose at Featured picture nomination, and would definitely have become featured if it was nominated independently rather than as an alternative. —UnpetitproleX 13:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness at the edges and level of detail is borderline, but in total it is over the bar for me. And probably some of the "low level of detail" impression comes from snow-covered hillsides not having too much detail, as the building seem detailed enough. --Plozessor 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great view, denoising overdone. --Smial 17:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, but no denoising was applied. —UnpetitproleX 07:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? UnpetitproleX 07:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Derwent_Water_Landing_Stage_Keswick_2022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rowing boats on the shore of Derwent Water --Julian Herzog 11:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 12:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Great Picture, but a Dust Spot in the Sky --Grunpfnul 13:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Sorry I just realised I skipped over your comment. I don't think PC is appropriate for the scene, it's not architecture and most of the scene would look strangely distorted with PC. --Julian Herzog 13:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Here it is too distorted too. --Sebring12Hrs 12:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, this view is not distorted. With a 17 mm lens you simply have an extreme field of view. --Syntaxys 19:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due perspective distortion. I took the liberty to create a perspective-corrected version myself and I don't think that it looks 'strangely distorted'. --Plozessor 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 09:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Acantilados_de_Dingli,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-21,_DD_78-80_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dingli Cliffs, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Too many areas are not sharp enough to me. The left, and the area with the electric pylon. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 09:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but now there is color noise and the right area is too unsharp. --Sebring12Hrs 18:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Spots in the sky, perspective distortion, CA, many areas lacking sharpness and detail. --Plozessor 15:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 09:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Пейзажи_Чарынского_каньона_7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sharyn canyon in Sharyn national park. Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Exxocette --Красный 07:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, good photo but oversaturated imo. --ArildV 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV, especially too much blue - I don't think that the mountains in the background are so intense blue. Reduce blue saturation and it would be really good. --Plozessor 15:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Ферма,_молочный_павильон_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milk pavilion of former Royal farm building complex (side view), Pushkin town, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image lacks sufficient sharpness, and the sky is noisy.--Rachid Hamatou 11:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support If I look for it explicitly, I can see slight VLF noise. But this is not a problem for an A4 printout, and the image sharpness is also sufficient. In any case, it's much better than over-sharpening.--Smial 10:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning to the left. --Sebring12Hrs 09:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

File:GAZ_M20_Pobeda._Tashkent,_Kichik_halqa_yoli_street_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GAZ M20 (Pobeda). Kichik halqa yoli street, Tashkent, Uzbekistan --Jamshid Nurkulov 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 15:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 05:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is distorted, likely due to the very short focal length and close shooting distance. Furthermore, the contrast in the front of the car could be better. Please discuss whether this is truly a QI. -- Spurzem 07:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem Jakubhal 05:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Taken from too short distance. Probably perspective correction could improve it a bit, but not sure. --Plozessor 15:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Antiquities_Pavilion_of_the_National_Museum_of_Antiquities_and_Islamic_Arts,_Algiers_180.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A 2nd-century torso of Mercury from Carthage in Algeria --Rachid Hamatou 12:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough (especially at the bottom and on the left side). --Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Sufficient quality for a smartphone picture--Reda Kerbouche 07:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should smartphone pictures really have any advantage in terms of sharpness here just because they're taken by smartphone? -- Екатерина Борисова 03:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    * CommentThere have been photos that were much worse than this one — including some of yours that passed the vote and received Quality Image status. In my opinion, this photo is definitely worthy of being a Quality Image. I hope you respect the opinions of others,thank you--Reda Kerbouche 07:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC).
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Reda Kerbouche 07:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Восстания_18,_Ковенский_пер._17_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior detail of former Muyaki revenue house, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose@Bgag: This photo cannot be considered good quality due to the blurred areas in the corners, and in general.--Rachid Hamatou 11:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Corvette,_BAS_24,_Brussels_(P1170387-RR).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chevrolet Corvette at Brussels Auto Show 2024 --MB-one 13:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too dark in the lower part. It could be easily brightened, but since it's already adjusted, I will not do anything about it. However, I would like to discuss whether it's truly a quality image in its current form. -- Spurzem 07:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo could be better with the crop of the red rope. --Sebring12Hrs 08:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Little_Egret_2025_05_30_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A little egret in flight. --Alexis Lours 00:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Not too sharp. And what's the blue halo between the tail and the legs? --Plozessor 03:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 22:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not very sharp, blue halo between tail and legs. --Plozessor 15:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Panorama_vom_Teltschickturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from the Teltschicktower in the Odenwald range --Milseburg 12:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Strange transitions between sharp and less sharp areas. There is a sort of stiching error. See note. --Sebring12Hrs 21:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The resolution is high and the panorama is overall sharp enough. The quality is above the QI-bar, I think. Let's hear other opinions. --Milseburg 05:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 11:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support I would not support it if there was a stitching error, but I don't think that the marked part is one, and I also could not find any other. --Plozessor 14:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Lol, this is very difficult to focus the issue in this large file, but if you check again.... I will not cancel my vote, because iI'm sure of what I saw. --Sebring12Hrs 14:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
      • Can you tell me at which location (pixels) the error is? --Plozessor 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
        • Yes. I added a note at the right edge. You can see a strange transition between sharp and less sharper area. You can see it if you look at the trees. --Sebring12Hrs 09:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
          •  Oppose Ah, yes, now I see it (here: https://ibb.co/hx00BM9z). Yes, no QI with that, you're absolutely right. Probably just crop that area away if it can't be fixed. --Plozessor 15:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Yes there was a seam. Thanks for the hint. I haven't noticed that. Now I made a new version. @Plozessor: and @Sebring12Hrs: , maybe you could clear your cache ans have time for another look. --Milseburg 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can see other areas with a similar issue. --Sebring12Hrs 09:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Are you able to leave a note and is the issue you mentioned first gone? --Milseburg 13:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No sorry, the original issue is solved, thanks, but several trees are very sharp in the foreground, but the transition with the background with less sharper trees is very fast. A less sharper background is absolutely normal but I find the transition a bit strange. But may be I am alone to see the issue. --Sebring12Hrs 14:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's hard to say without any more comments. Even User:Plozessor remains silent. The file is probably too large for some people. Improvements are difficult when you can't pinpoint a specific area. Despite the high resolution, I find the sharpness above average compared to the other images passed through here. I think it's normal for nearby trees to be more clearly visible than distant ones. I would also like to point out that the image is not about individual trees, but rather about the impression of the landscape, the mountains and the development, seen in summary from this location —less about the close-up than the medium and distant areas.--Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Podzamek,_mauzoleum_rodu_von_Magnis_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podzamek, the mausoleum of the von Magnis family 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose CA in the leaves (fixable). --Plozessor 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very unfortunate lighting. The mausoleum can probably only be photographed well in diffuse light. -- Spurzem 08:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Phrynocephalus_strauchi_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strauch's toad agam in natural habit.-Carpodacus 18:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is the head really sharp here? --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. Lvova 16:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's unsharp. --Bgag 13:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Журчалка_в_ботаническом_саду_Ташкента.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flower hoverfly in the Tashkent Botanical Garden. -- 26D 06:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saiphani02 07:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of insufficient ID. The genus should be mentioned for a hoverfly IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I see, it was done. Lvova 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment No, it was not. No genus or species was assigned. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    But Syrphidae on flowers? Lvova 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    Syrphidae is the name of the family, not the name of the genus. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. In my opinion, the image meets the rules of a QI. Jamshid Nurkulov 11:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

µ  Oppose Not very sharp, focus issue on the bird ? --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 30 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)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose So per Robert Flogaus-Faust. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There could be much more detail in the shadows, despite the high contrast. --Syntaxys 12:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 12:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 26 Jun → Fri 04 Jul
  • Fri 27 Jun → Sat 05 Jul
  • Sat 28 Jun → Sun 06 Jul
  • Sun 29 Jun → Mon 07 Jul
  • Mon 30 Jun → Tue 08 Jul
  • Tue 01 Jul → Wed 09 Jul
  • Wed 02 Jul → Thu 10 Jul
  • Thu 03 Jul → Fri 11 Jul
  • Fri 04 Jul → Sat 12 Jul
Informasiya Melumat Axtar