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 May 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 May 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 May 30 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]] 14:10, 30 May 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).


May 30, 2025

[edit]

May 29, 2025

[edit]

May 28, 2025

[edit]

May 27, 2025

[edit]

May 26, 2025

[edit]

May 25, 2025

[edit]

May 24, 2025

[edit]

May 23, 2025

[edit]

May 22, 2025

[edit]

May 21, 2025

[edit]

May 20, 2025

[edit]

May 19, 2025

[edit]

May 18, 2025

[edit]

May 17, 2025

[edit]

May 16, 2025

[edit]

May 13, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 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:At_London_2025_407.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Albert Memorial, London --Mike Peel 05:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The file name could be more meaningful. --Milseburg 19:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your image titles are often very vague. I'm sending this one to CR as an example to clarify whether titles of this type are meaningful enough. --Milseburg 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Milseburg. Most of Mike's file names do not comply with Commons' file naming guideline which literally says: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg". Thus  Oppose for now. --Plozessor (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 09:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_moisture_sucking_activity_of_Euploea_core_(Cramer,_(1780))_-_Common_Crow_WLB_DSC_9485a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination
  • Close wing moisture sucking activity of Euploea core (Cramer, (1780)) - Common Crow --Sandipoutsider 11:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 12:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 08:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 09:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Обитатели_петербургского_Океанариума_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corydoras pygmaeus --Lvova 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment Enough for what? The fish is 1 cm long and its eyes and scales are clearly visible. --Lvova 19:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is skewed and shows almost exclusively the surroundings, making the central object very small. If you crop the picture reasonably well, you are left with less than two MPixels in poor quality. --Smial 08:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    skewed means an angle where there are no reflections and it is absolutely possible to crop with 2mp, but I'll nominate it separately. At least it makes sense, thank you. Lvova 10:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, Not sharp enough Anna.Massini 09:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, but I would support this version if you'd crop the majority of the base away. --Plozessor 02:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 02:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Обитатели_петербургского_Океанариума_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A young crocodile nicknamed Shpinat (spinach) --Lvova 18:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment There is a Halo at the left top of the console. --Sebring12Hrs 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    I checked, rechecked and asked friends, and noone see what do you mean. --Lvova 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose DoF is not optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 16:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    Optimal for what? --Lvova 19:22, 28 May 2025
 Oppose Sorry, but the photo is blurry on the front as well as the backAnna.Massini 09:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
It is a definition of not a big DoF, but still not a reason. But okay, let's make a vote instead of review.
How do you sign that you have your signature for several times? Lvova 10:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As "insufficient depth of field" is literally listed as an image defect in QI guidelines, "DoF is not optimal" is very well a valid reason to decline a nomination. In this specific case, due to the small DoF the front if out of focus. At least the complete head should have been sharp. --Plozessor 02:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 02:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Giro_d'Italia_2025,_Stage_14_Treviso_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The start of stage 14 of Giro d'Italia 2025 in Treviso --Kallerna 17:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Background is motion blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 21:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Not that much, and it is only the background. Quite good view of moving subject. I ask for a another opinion. --Kallerna 11:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Depth of field is normal for f/5.6. Main subject is sharp enough --Ermell 06:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree. Good quality for according to me. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 03:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 09:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 09:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Обитатели_петербургского_Океанариума_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tetraodon lineatus --Lvova 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The reflected light spoils the compo. --Sebring12Hrs 08:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Lvova 10:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
    Much better, but I think it lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 12:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow it blurry and washed out. It was taken with a smartphone camera at ISO 3200, so probably there was a lot of NR done that can explain this. Also it's heavily downscaled (the camera has 50 MP but the picture has 9 MP); though 9 MP would be enough as such. --Plozessor 03:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Candlelight_Prayer_Ritual.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hindu devotees at Rakher Upobash, Dhaka (by Muhammad Amdad Hossain) -- Kaim Amin 18:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but too strong noise and unsharp. Sorry --Jakubhal 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Smoke is not noise. --Ermell 21:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Added implicit support as Ermell objected to Jakubhal's decline--Plozessor 05:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. When I load the file at full screen, I can easly see the chroma noise at the upper left. --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Unusual composition, but very appealing to me. Yes, there is some chroma noise in the upper left corner, but IMO that is neglectable. Sharpness is acceptable for a night drone shot. --Plozessor 05:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not only the corner. Strong chroma noise is everywhere. It is also not very sharp as it was photographed from hand at 1/8 s Jakubhal 06:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • It was taken with a drone, not "by hand". IMO the lack of perfect sharpness is due to the combination of small sensor, high ISO and noise reduction.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Orlová,_socha_17._listopadu_2021_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orlová, Karviná District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The statue looks really good, but CA's on trees in the background spoil the image IMO --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, blue tint, subject not standing out from background. --Plozessor 05:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Not too bad, though I'd chosen f/4 or eben f/2.8 to get better bokeh (hopefully). The only thing that really bothers me is the colorful advertising and the car in the background on the right. I have drawn a suggestion for a different crop as a note in the photo. --Smial 11:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ziegelstrasse_2_in_Hann._Muenden_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ziegelstraße 2 in Hann. Münden, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, also it seems to be WB issue here. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.Anna.Massini 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The parts of building is falling down at this picture. I specially checked google panoramas, that it is not like this in reality. Lvova 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. The perspective isn't so bad, the upper parts of the house and the building to the right are leaning in reality. I think it's because of the crop that it appears unnatural because the surrounding (straight) buildings are not visible. However, the picture is also too dark and has a bit too cold WB. Yes, it was taken at dusk, but that doesn't mean that the picture must be dark. I would probably accept a brighter version. --Plozessor 03:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Plozessor: The picture is brighter now. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the upper parts do not lean. They appear quite vertical using Google view. It is not just a problem of brightness. --Harlock81 12:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded with more the brigtness. --Tournasol7 07:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 12:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rauwerd_(Fries_Raerd)._26-02-2025._(actm.)_jpg_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rauwerd (Fries Raerd). Raised cemetery at the Laurentius church. Graves from the second half of the nineteenth century.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I don't like the crop. Other opinion ? --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • When viewed in full size, I would appreciate a little more detail and a little less noise. --Paramanu Sarkar 06:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Paramanu Sarkar *✓ Done. Noise reduction and a bit more detail. Note: these are very old, damaged gravestones. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 13:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Marktkirche_in_Bad_Bergzabern_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Marktkirche in Bad Bergzabern, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see that two respected users think this photo is good, but I just can't agree. The tower looks so unnaturally distorted that it just seems like a caricature. I know that I have little chance of understanding, because it is customary here to support such images, but still, let's discuss whether such a distortion is acceptable. This is especially true for the educational purposes of the project, since the image, which strongly distorts the real appearance of the building, has a low educational value IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I tend to accept such perspective if there's no other way because the photographer just can't get further away from the subject. Here however, at least if the coordinates are correct, here he could easily have gone 20 m more to the south to take the picture with less distortion. Also the shadowy part has a blue tint. With both issues it's slightly under the bar for me. --Plozessor 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's overdistorted. i can't see any blue tint here... When I look which images are promotted I don't understand why this one shouldn't be. --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs: In the shadowy part at the bottom, the EV station is #466b83 and the bollard next to it is #6a99b8, both is clearly blue though these objects are grey/white in reality. --Plozessor 03:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction was unsuccessful, and therefore, despite its perfect sharpness, the photo cannot be classified as a quality image in my opinion. There is now a second version in which the shadows are also slightly brightened. But this image isn't really that good either. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, if we always get "perspective correction needed" reviews with minimal leaning, then how can there be complaints when buildings are perfectly straight but get slightly distorted? There are a lot of existing QI much more distorted than this one. I prefer less perspective correction, but it's what's being pushed here in QIC. --Kadellar 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    I couldn't have said it better ! --Sebring12Hrs 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Maybe we'll just stop support the images that are perfectly straigtened, but strongly distorts the real appearance of depicted buildings? This is an old song like "If our ancestors did this, then we will do the same," which does not improve the situation at all, but only multiplies the number of technically good, but ugly and unrealistic images, and, among other things, does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry I just disagree. A leaning building is also ugly and unrealistic. --Sebring12Hrs 06:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, of course, a heavily leaning building also looks unrealistic, and I do not suggest approving such images. But when we decline images where the building is tilted by half a degree, but approve images where the building is vertical, but as badly distorted as here, we are not making the QI project better and are simply disorienting both the photographers and those people who will use these images, believing that images like this one are the best that is in the Commons. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And I prefer no distortion instead of "perspective correction needed" reviews. Lvova 10:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't agree with aggressive perspective corrections. In the many years I've been involved with this site, I've stopped upvoting images for that reason. If the images are taken from a clearly lower plane, the photographer can't distort the image excessively when processing it.
It's possible to propose the image with a less aggressive perspective correction. I'll be happy to promove it (I'll be on hand to assist you if the perspective correction is less aggressive. (I hope to be able to do so, or I hope to be notified so I can do so.)).--Lmbuga 23:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the image with the worst distortion due to excessive perspective correction. And many, over the years, have been approved.--Lmbuga 23:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
It is necessary to change the rules and approach something rational--Lmbuga 23:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
It is necessary that a rule say that perfect perspective correction is not always a blessing--Lmbuga 23:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Above the QI-bar in my eyes. --Milseburg 15:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per lmbuga. The camera location is too close to the object, so that a halfway natural-looking perspective representation is not possible. Although the representation appears to be correct according to the laws of geometric optics, this does not mean that this photo (and countless others corrected in this way) corresponds to the visual impression on site. --Smial 15:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hochries,_Alpes_del_Chiemgau,_Alemania,_2024-10-18,_DD_17-22_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hochries, Chiemgau Alps, Germany --Poco a poco 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A colored edge can be seen on the ridge near the sun. The right frame is too blurred and the transition is too clear. The horizon should not be so curved although the earth is of course a sphere. --Ermell 08:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, thanks --Poco a poco 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 16:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I sharpened it, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss. Btw the images has 32 Mpx of resolution --Poco a poco 12:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if this are CAs or not but there are some strange textures at the top of the trees. I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    That was a bit of chroma noise, removed. Poco a poco 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It has some technical deficiencies (especially sharpness and detail), but the composition is very good and overall it is over the bar for me. It is a bit dark, but it was taken at evening so that seems realistic. --Plozessor 07:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is good now but there are some stitching errors visible if you look at the horizont.--Ermell 10:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, there are stitching errors, had overlooked these. --Plozessor 03:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Will need 2 days to fix them Poco a poco 06:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Plozessor, Ermell: I'm ready to fix any stitching issues, but I cannot say for sure that there are any. In some areas, they could be but I'm not 100% sure. Could you please add notes in the areas you believe rework is required? Poco a poco 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Marked an obvious one. --Plozessor 15:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, ✓ Done Poco a poco 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 22 May → Fri 30 May
  • Fri 23 May → Sat 31 May
  • Sat 24 May → Sun 01 Jun
  • Sun 25 May → Mon 02 Jun
  • Mon 26 May → Tue 03 Jun
  • Tue 27 May → Wed 04 Jun
  • Wed 28 May → Thu 05 Jun
  • Thu 29 May → Fri 06 Jun
  • Fri 30 May → Sat 07 Jun