Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

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

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 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]] 03:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 4, 2025

[edit]

September 3, 2025

[edit]

September 2, 2025

[edit]

September 1, 2025

[edit]

August 31, 2025

[edit]

August 30, 2025

[edit]

August 29, 2025

[edit]

August 28, 2025

[edit]

August 27, 2025

[edit]

August 26, 2025

[edit]

August 25, 2025

[edit]

August 24, 2025

[edit]

August 23, 2025

[edit]

August 22, 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:Cap_Fartas.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2025. By User:Smailtn --Houss 2020 13:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 18:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and it lacks sharpness, but very good compo, it's a shame. --Sebring12Hrs 18:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs; the sky almost looks like a painting.--Peulle 07:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great photo! --E bailey 13:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great scene, poor quality. --Milseburg 14:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due significant noise and general quality alone. But unless User:Smailtn is Khaled Ladjimi, this is also a stolen stock photo which is also used by TripAdvisor and various other websites. --Plozessor 03:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Frutaria_Liu_storefront,_Avenida_de_Paris,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frutaria Liu storefront, Avenida de Paris, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think the reflection ruins the shot. --Lvova 19:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I chose this photo precisely because of the reflection, as it tells the viewer who the shop owner was greeting --Julesvernex2 21:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • It is not obvious that she is greeting, but there are visible a lot of other things. But of course, let's listen for others. Lvova 22:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it would have been a better shot without the big white van. As for the greeting, I don’t think good images need to be obvious. Often, the most interesting ones force us to stop and think, or rob us of the satisfaction of definitive answers —Julesvernex2 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Lvova here - the photographer's reflection is too disturbing.--Peulle 07:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Чеглок_-_Eurasian_Hobby_(Falco_subbuteo)_2.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:VELO_2025,_Berlin_(P1047080).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City pedelec bicycle by Electrolyte --MB-one 12:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The light in the center of the picture ruins the picture, but that's just an opinion. --Lmbuga 18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Tried to fix it --MB-one 20:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I don't like the new version. The bike feels worse than before. I'm having trouble feeling the contours of the handlebars. It is better to let others have their say. --Lmbuga 20:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment That's very interesting, because the bike itself didn't change at all. --MB-one 08:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose I'm more worried about the background, to be honest; it's pretty cluttered and chaotic, taking the attention away from the main subject.--Peulle 07:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 08:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Pêche_au_filet_mauvais_temps.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2025. By User:Smailtn --Houss 2020 23:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I wish this was a little more sharp, but can overlook that in favor of the composition and the capture of the moment. --Acroterion 03:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some strange noise at the horizon and on the sky. In addition, CAs need to be removed (sea foam). --Sebring12Hrs 20:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Wow factor is counted in FPs, but for a QI, I'm looking strictly at the technical quality.--Peulle 07:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 14:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Nigelle_de_Damas_Radès.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2025. By User:Smailtn --Houss 2020 23:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 04:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, noisy. Lvova 18:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 18:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Приморский_парк_Победы,_сирень_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Syringa vulgaris in Primorsky Park of Victory, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Кот_у_здания_синагоги_в_Старой_Руссе.jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Looks a bit shaky, I agree. I don't think it's on purpose, as the background is not moving. But the cat isn't suffering from camera shake, looks like... Some kind of processing problem? --Peulle 07:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Camera shake usually only shows up in one orientation. To me, this looks more like terrible bokeh. Can this be considered a mistake on the part of the photographer? --Smial 09:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-08-10_D500-0076_Achim-Lammerts_FFH-Hördter-Rheinaue.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Michelsbach creek in the Hördter Rheinaue FFH protected area. --Syntaxys 13:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The sky is burnt, I don't think you can save it --Poco a poco 15:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This is a backlight situation and the sky wasn't blue this time. --Syntaxys 17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • That's clear to me, but fact is, that it is overexposed, not all images can become QI --Poco a poco 06:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Please discuss. What do you think is the main motif in this picture? The sky or the wild floodplain in the bright morning light, after the haze has dissolved into high fog? --Syntaxys 17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky is very bright, but the compo is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Staraya_Russa_20210524_211917.jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose A common problem with smartphone photos: sometimes the sharpening algorithm wins, sometimes the noise reduction function does. --Smial 11:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:F-WXLR,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA45387).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flying display of the Airbus A321 XLR at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 06:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 16:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tail of airplane is sharp but the rest of the fuselage and wings appear blurred. --E bailey 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough detail, imo.--Peulle 10:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • Nomination Location of former motte-and-bailey castle Hundsrück near Wülflingen (archaeological monument) --Plozessor 02:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, sky on the very far left looks too artificial too me.--Milseburg 09:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the light is a bit harsh at the upper left in the sky, but the compo and the sharpness are very good. --Sebring12Hrs 20:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the turquoise tone but the clouds are blown too. --Milseburg 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per milseburg. --Smial 09:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg and Smial: Improved the left part of the sky, please have another look.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Schafe_im_Grünen_Band_nördlich_vom_Spanshügel_zwischen_Schlechtsart_und_Trappstadt_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sheep north of the Spanshügel in "Green Belt Thuringia" national natural monument and "Schlechtsarter Schweiz" nature reserve --Plozessor 02:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The border between leaves and sky at the right is very strange. --Lvova 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Lvova: Indeed. Uploaded a new version where it looks at least less strange, please have a look. --Plozessor 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good for me, thank you. --Lvova 12:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the upper right side looks blurry and I doubt that this sheep cut in half decorates the image. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support I disagree, the upper right part is not blurred but rather ouf. Overall an idyllic rural scene, I personalyu don't think the sheep on the right is a big problem. --ArildV 06:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Sometimes we decline images where only small piece of animal's tail is cut. On the other hand, this photo is not a portrait of this very sheep, but a landscape, so maybe such a big cut is quite acceptable. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I actually think the sheep adds value to the image, walking into the picture with eyes directed towards the photographer and the viewer. Makes the image more vivid and fun imo.--ArildV 12:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Milbar_Side_National_Bakery_Ooty_Aug25_A7CR_07220.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milbar (layered flaky cake), side view, from National Bakery, Ooty, The Nilgiris --Tagooty 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough in the full size. --Lvova 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit underexposed but I see detail here --Poco a poco 07:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Better, thanks, Poco a poco 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 19:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off --Smial 09:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Milbar_Top_National_Bakery_Ooty_Aug25_A7CR_07223.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milbar (layered flaky cake), top view, from National Bakery, Ooty, The Nilgiris --Tagooty 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not sharp enough in the full size. --Lvova 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
    I find the cherry and cream in this 36 MP image to be quite sharp. I've uploaded a new version with tweaked sharpness and NR. I request other opinions. --Tagooty 12:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova, only a small area of the dessert is in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 15:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off --Smial 09:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 15:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Close-up_of_heliotrope_flower_(Heliotropium_arborescens,_Jardim_da_Fundação_Calouste_Gulbenkian,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination File:Close-up of heliotrope flower (Heliotropium arborescens, Jardim da Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 21:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 23:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but the focus is on the calyxes and on the flowers at the bottom. Most of the corollas elsewhere are blurred --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, and that’s by design: the goal of this image is to highlight the shape of the stem, the foreground and background out-of-focus corollas provide context --Julesvernex2 12:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support, though somewhat more DOF would have been nice. --Smial 14:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Happy_face_in_the_wall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paper happy face in the allI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --User:Heylenny 19:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 21:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • It's a camera from 2017. --Heylenny 05:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but low level of details, noise and not very sharp and not a high quality photo 2017. Most of my QI and FP are taken with cameras made between 2010 and 2012.--ArildV 10:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A "camera from 2017" alone does not make a QI. Quality is low, it has noise, it isn't sharp. Composition is questionable - what is the picture useful for? There is no adequate description. Why ISO 400? --Plozessor 17:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 14:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 17:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Rock_balancing_in_Florianópolis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beach in Florianópolis, BrazilI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --User:Heylenny 19:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 21:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Sebring12Hrs, I respectfully disagree with you. Either you have a very good eye for spotting the pixels that aren't sharp on everything I candidate here, or you're really mistaken. I will wait for the rest of the community's feedback. --Heylenny 22:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, good lighting and good quality -- Spurzem 08:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The top stone may be very slightly blurry at full scale, but this is a good photo IMO --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until the tilt is fixed (look at the horizon). Otherwise good quality, sharp enough --Benjism89 09:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
@Benjism89: ✓ Done. --Heylenny 01:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
 Support Thanks, good quality now. --Benjism89 08:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 08:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)~

File:Mercedes-Benz_300_E_3.4_AMG,_TC_24,_Essen_(TCE43456-RR).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 300 E 3.4 AMG at Techno-Classica 2024, Essen --MB-one 12:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Comment DoF? --Lmbuga 18:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    IMO it's good enough here. --MB-one 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Pobably you are right --Lmbuga 11:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the many light reflections on the car, nor the reddish light in the showroom. It's another case where, in my opinion, the external conditions don't allow a quality image. However, I ask to discuss whether the photo still deserves an award. -- Spurzem 06:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 14:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree for the reflexion of the light, but for me the DoF should more focused the rear of the car. --Sebring12Hrs 15:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 17:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Clothes_lines_on_building_nearby_Jardim_Fernando_Pessa,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clothes lines on building nearby Jardim Fernando Pessa, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 03:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --TheBritinator 00:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree, dappled lighting often makes for a more engaging composition. In this case, it highlights the dissonance of having clothes drying in the shade while the clothes lines under the sun are empty --Julesvernex2 06:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like an effect from shadows. Lvova 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Cvmontuy 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lvova. --Plozessor 03:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very disturbing shadows -- Spurzem 10:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can accept these shadows, but the tower is clearly distorted by perspective correction, and it makes the picture not QI in my eyes, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 23:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • How so? The image was shot at 50mm equivalent focal length, only a small amount of perspective correction was needed to straighten the verticals —Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The tower is not distorted. I would have developed the image a little brighter, especially lightening the shadows a bit, so that they would be less distracting. --Syntaxys 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 17:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Рябина_в_августе_в_Санкт-Петербурге_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sorbus in Saint Petersburg --Lvova 09:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 05:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost nothing in focus. Needs to be cropped. Very poor composition. --Lmbuga 21:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above.--Ermell 22:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 22:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 27 Aug → Thu 04 Sep
  • Thu 28 Aug → Fri 05 Sep
  • Fri 29 Aug → Sat 06 Sep
  • Sat 30 Aug → Sun 07 Sep
  • Sun 31 Aug → Mon 08 Sep
  • Mon 01 Sep → Tue 09 Sep
  • Tue 02 Sep → Wed 10 Sep
  • Wed 03 Sep → Thu 11 Sep
  • Thu 04 Sep → Fri 12 Sep