Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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


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

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


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

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

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 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]] 11:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


June 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]

June 15, 2025

[edit]

June 11, 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: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)
    Sorry, good photo but oversaturated imo. --ArildV 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_basking_position_of_Meandrusa_lachinus_(Fruhstorfer,1902)_-_Brown_Gorgon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Meandrusa lachinus (Fruhstorfer, 1902) - Brown Gorgon. By User:Atanu Bose Photography --Atudu 05:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ziv 05:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too small. --Plozessor 05:55, 29 June 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)

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)

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)

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)

File:Галерная_55_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Relief over the gate of former palace of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 05:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The left side of the photo is very blurred, which affects the overall quality.--Rachid Hamatou 11:12, 29 June 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)

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)

File:Architectural_and_Cultural_Heritage_of_the_Casbah_of_Algiers_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Architectural and Cultural Heritage of the Casbah of Algiers --Rachid Hamatou 14:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't know how much this portal is skewed in reality, so I will not talk about horizontal alignment yet. But at least the picture needs a normal description, because I can't believe that this door itself is a heritage site. It is necessary to specify what building it is and where it is located. --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: The photo has the correct perspective—just look at the column on the right for reference. For your information, all doors, windows, and houses in the Casbah of Algiers are recognized as cultural heritage by UNESCO. You can verify this on the official website. The description has been adjusted accordingly.--Rachid Hamatou 10:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, verticals are vertical here, but all the same it looks like tilted horizontally. Maybe it's natural condition of this old door, maybe not, I don't know and that's why I didn't opposed the image, just commented it. As for decription - according to the rules of QI project images shall have a meaningful file name and an accurate description. So reviewers should not search on websites for exactly what is depicted in the picture, it should be clear from the description. But since you've already corrected the description of this image, I have no complaints now. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture with adequate description. --Plozessor 15:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Barn_Swallow_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barn Swallow in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 11:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the dust spots and other stains should be removed.
    --Petro Stelte 14:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It should be good now. QI for me. -- Spurzem 07:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. --Petro Stelte 09:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 07:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini

File:One_stands_out_004_2025_06_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Silver coins, including one hole coin (Norwegian krone)
    --F. Riedelio 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The coins appear to be cut out and superimposed on a solid fill; right? --Lvova 22:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Answered Not correct: The background was colored red in Photoshop to better represent the coins. --F. Riedelio 15:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is of poor quality due to rough object cutouts and a flat background fill, resulting in an unnatural and visually jarring effect. --Lvova 17:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, mainly because of the unrelated file name, though I also don't like the bright red background. --Plozessor 15:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Apparently, the name of the picture was given - and the picture was specially taken - to participate in this month's Photochallenge of the same name :) -- Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_paradaise_flycater.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Indian paradise flycatcher (Terpsiphone paradisi). By User:Dasrath Shrestha Beejukchhen (Bablu) --Nirmal Dulal 02:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, massively cropped or downscaled (3MP photo taken with 50MP camera). --Plozessor 04:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is above the 2 MP threshold, it is sharp, well-composed and good colours. --Tagooty 05:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mosh_mushuk_va_Kelechek2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White and tabby cat with bottle of "Kelechek" --Panpanchik 10:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of cat face is out of focus. Could still work for photo with only face if both eyes are in focus - but that is not the case. Also, a strange effect around the cat's head, which stands out too much from the background, as if the background was edited (perhaps just overprocessed by smartphone). --Jakubhal 04:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose … and poor composition. I like cats but this picture is no QI for me. -- Spurzem 08:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cute cat, but strange effects at its edge and strange transitions between levels of sharpness; I guess that the bokeh is AI generated which didn't work out well. --Plozessor 15:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ферма,_боковые_одноэтажные_флигели_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former Royal farm building complex, Pushkin town, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Borderline sharpness. Please discuss. Pictures with better sharpness was declined. --Sebring12Hrs 03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
     OpposeThe sky has some noise, but it can be easily corrected. I’ll change my vote once it's fixed.--Rachid Hamatou 10:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:La_pietra_tagliata_-_Cennina_-_Bucine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The cut stone - Cennina – Bucine. -- Anna.Massini 18:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini Anna.Massini 18:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Very nice --ArildV 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Purples CA at left on the tree and blue CAs at right on the tree should be removed. --Sebring12Hrs 03:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you, I have corrected it. Anna.Massini 14:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
 Comment I corrected the chromatic aberrations. Are there any favorable opinions? Anna.Massini 07:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Comment It remains few purple CAs at the left top edge in the branches. --Sebring12Hrs 08:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  CommentOk, I didn't see thanks. I've corrected it further now.Anna.Massini 09:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini

File:Freiburg_im_Breisgau,_Münster,_Turm_--_2025_--_7901.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Freiburg Minster, Freiburg im Breisgau, Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald district, Baden-Württemberg, Germany --XRay 08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The focus didn't work well here, and there are green CAs. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review. Unusual view, yes. Remove of CAs improved. Other improvements made. --XRay 04:55, 28 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)

File:Honey_bee_collecting_nectar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey bee collecting nectar in shivapuri nagarjun national park. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 09:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    ...but no categories. --Lvova 10:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dr. Thomas Liptak 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  CommentTo be useful going forward in Commons and Wikipedia, per Lvova, ps honey bee needs to be cateogrized by species. --GRDN711 15:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • So please decline, do not cancel their votes. --Sebring12Hrs 21:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I had no objection to a QI rating for this image - just added a comment to encourage categorization. It is an anomaly of the voting bot that changed the outline color from green-to-blue, just like your comment changed it from blue-to-yellow. And,… my latest comment will change it back-to-blue. --GRDN711 05:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @GRDN711: You changed the status from "Promoted" to "Nominated" instead of "Discuss." If you trust a bot, you need to check if it's going right and correct it if necessary.--Milseburg 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Info category added -- Nirmal Dulal 11:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Anna.Massini 11:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support with improved categorization. --GRDN711 06:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Schwetzingen_-_Gartenvase_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Garden vase, Garden of Schwetzingen Palace, Germany --Llez 04:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Motion blur or issue with the focus ? Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I made a new version from RAW, please discuss --Llez 06:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry but the new version is not better to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Did you clean the Cache? --Llez 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I cheked on the file page. --Sebring12Hrs 14:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Opened this picture for the first time, so can't have the original version in the cache, but it's still not sharp enough, looks like motion blur (camera movement) to me. --Plozessor 04:28, 28 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)

File:Église_Sainte-Eugénie_de_Biarritz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Sainte-Eugénie church in Biarritz, the Port des Pêcheurs beach and the Port des Pêcheurs at sunset seen from the Basta rock. --Espandero 19:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Textures of the trees and leaves are overprocessed and strange. --Sebring12Hrs 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I gave it a go but honestly it's not about over-processing because I barely touched the trees compared to the rest. They look like this in the RAW file as well so I guess it has to do with the low lighting when I took the picture. I don't think it's that distracting when looking at the picture in full. Do you? (same for the other file) --Espandero 21:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. I understand the reasons of Espandero , but it cannot be considered a quality photo. Sorry Anna.Massini 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow it's overprocessed, it looks oversharpened and has high noise. Probably happened already in the camera due ISO 800. Could as well be a result of noise reduction. --Plozessor 15:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Sainte-Eugénie_de_Biarritz_et_plage_du_Port_des_Pêcheurs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Sainte-Eugénie church in Biarritz and the Port des Pêcheurs beach at sunset seen from the Basta rock. --Espandero 19:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Textures of the trees and leaves are overprocessed and strange. --Sebring12Hrs 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose per Sebring12Hrs Anna.Massini 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Таврическая_улица,_37,_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tavricheskaya street, 37, St. Petersburg --Lvova 09:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Slight PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 12:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not so sharp and this tilt bothers me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment In my opinion, tilt is really minimal here, but yes, level of detail is borderline for an outdoor picture taken on a sunny day (resolution being barely above minimal required). --Benjism89 19:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. -- Jamshid Nurkulov 11:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Reflection_of_trees,_Calouste_Gulbenkian_Foundation,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reflection of trees, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 10:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    There're many strange blurry spots all across the image, that don't look like natural ones. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    The blurry spots are indeed natural, they are pebbles lurking just beneath the surface of this shallow pond (plus a few leaves on the surface). The goal of these elements is to hint the viewer that they're looking at a reflection. --Julesvernex2 20:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support I support the photo because even if at first glance the points where there are stones appear annoying, it is a very original vision, and understanding that it is an image reflected in the water, I consider it to be of good quality. Anna.Massini 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lamborghini_Countach_25th_Anniversary_IMG_2994.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 17:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Great car, but too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    *  Support Not the best background but very good view to the car and good quality. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 18:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:47, 25 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 16:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Young_Lanius_collurio.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young red-backed schrike.-Carpodacus 18:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is the head really sharp here? --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness, not only the head. --Sebring12Hrs 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Anna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough sharp. --Bgag 03:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm agree with Sebring12Hrs. Lvova 16:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 08:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_XK_(X150)_Convertible_4.2_IMG_2974.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jaguar XK (X150) Convertible 4.2 in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --PascalHD 20:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background and dark areas are noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 22:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fiat_Abarth_595_esseesse_IMG_3014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fiat Abarth 595 esseesse in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The car is too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 08:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    • I uploaded a new version which is less noisy. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Both variants are good enough for an A4 size print. I don't think it would be good to denoise even more. --Smial 17:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good t me now. --MB-one 15:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image, good quality -- Spurzem 08:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Spurzem --GRDN711 06:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support 26D 07:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 07:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Black_Oak_Heritage_Park,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2025-06-07_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black Oak Heritage Park, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-06-07 --Crisco 1492 01:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Path is fuzzy. Also needs a specific description. --Tagooty 02:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Path is covered in poplar seeds. Of course it's fuzzy. --Crisco 1492 10:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Sent to CR as Decline incorrectly changed back to Nomination. --Tagooty 05:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support somewhat more DOF would have been nice, but good enough. --Smial 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good imo. Limited DOF on purpose. Clearly QI for me.--ArildV 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 06:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pollux's_horse_transferred_from_a_temple_of_Castor_and_Pollux_to_the_Piazza_del_Campidoglio_on_the_Capitoline_in_1585.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pollux's horse --Wilfredor 15:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the blurred foreground thing at the bottom right corner ruins it --Benjism89 16:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Moving this to CR as I would like to have other opinions on this. After I mentioned the blurred foreground at the bottom right corner, you retouched the image by copy-pasting a part of the neck on the blurred area. Although I think you did a pretty good job (I think most people won't notice it), I wonder if this image is still a fairly accurate representation of this artwork. In reality, this sculpture doesn't have cracks at the same places as in your picture. In my opinion, this kind of retouching is OK on a tiny surface, but here, I think it's too large --Benjism89 09:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 Anna.Massini 11:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The retouched (probably AI-generated) corner is a too large portion of the actual subject. (Also tilt and blue tint.) --Plozessor 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 & Plozessor. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_William_Edward_Forster,_London,_April_2025_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of William Edward Forster, London --Mike Peel 09:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose distracting background. --Kallerna 05:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is not disturbing. Other opinions? --KaiBorgeest 22:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose distracting background for me too Anna.Massini 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Why shouldn't this photo be a quality image? Take a look at the picture of the Lamborghini below. It couldn't be much worse. But as far as I can see, the image easily passes the QI test. So: equal rights for all. Right? -- Spurzem 14:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, I think it is a QI.--KaiBorgeest 16:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting background, and half of the face is hidden in the dark --Jakubhal 18:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal. --Harlock81 05:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Distracing background? What a stange decline-reason. Should the photographer really be expected to cut down the tree? The shadows are really a bit dark. --Milseburg 12:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal on background and per Milseburg on exposure. --GRDN711 06:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Exposure redone to brighten the shadows. I can't do much about the background... Thanks. Mike Peel 10:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better ! --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Spessartwiesen_Heigenbruecken_Lohrbach1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heigenbruecken, nature reserve 'Spessartwiesen', SAC 'Lohrbach- und Aubach-Tal' in 'LSG innerhalb des Naturparks Spessart (ehemals Schutzzone)' --KaiBorgeest 21:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA, awkward composition, tilted. --Kallerna 05:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree The right trees ARE leaning out of the water. If you compare to the backgorund, the whole picture is NOT tileted.--KaiBorgeest 22:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking and the blades of grass, the picture may not be tilted. However, it is not enough sharp according to me. --Harlock81 05:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not so bad, but borderline, there are also CAs at right. --Sebring12Hrs 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:At New York City 2024 226 - Columbus Monument.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columbus Monument, New York City --Mike Peel 07:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saiphani02 07:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Romainbehar 10:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upper part - unfortunately the actual statue - out of focus. Also improper file name. --Plozessor 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline indeed, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, tilted, CA's on trees. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    • CA tweaked, sharpened a bit more, and rotated a bit. File also renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Better, removing my opposing vote, but still not supporting due actual statue blurry. --Plozessor 15:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 15:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Журчалка_в_ботаническом_саду_Ташкента.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flower hoverfly in the Tashkent Botanical Garden. -- 26D 06:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saiphani02 07:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of insufficient ID. The genus should be mentioned for a hoverfly IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Растения_с_Тропического_маршрута_Ботанического_сада_Петра_Великого_175.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea nouchali var. caerulea --Lvova 05:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Kallerna 05:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Firstly, no - it's a small radius pool, the far edge is quite logically rounded. Secondly, if anyone else thinks this is a problem, it can easily be fixed. --Lvova 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not a perspective correction extremist, but the horizontally tilted water lilies in the background are somehow disturbing to me. Probably you can rotate the picture so that these are horizontal? Otherwise the picture is very good and it should be a shame not to have it promoted. --Plozessor 04:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, I did as you said. Lvova 17:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: ? :) Lvova 16:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Oops, me here! Good now! --Plozessor 15:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is QI for me --Jakubhal 18:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 08:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The thing in bottom right is disturbing a bit, but overall quality is good enough IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 06:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Алматинский_ботанический_сад,_магнолия_09.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Bobolink. Suffield Wildlife Management Area. Suffield, CT USA --Pdanese 12:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benlisquare 12:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus point seems ok, but I can't accept the blurring noise reduction combined with oversharpening. --Smial 11:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. The bird is sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-necked_puffbird_(Notharchus_hyperrhynchus_hyperrhynchus)_Rio_Napo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-necked puffbird (Notharchus hyperrhynchus) --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DXR 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support May be a bit overprocessed ? But sharpness is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The focus looks ok, but the image noise and sharpening are both exaggerated. It's NOT at all bad if a little noise remains and surfaces of any kind don't look like plastic wrap or LEGO bricks. --Smial 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose No problem with focus, but for me it is too much oversharpened --Jakubhal 04:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The critical remarks are reasonable and correct, yet the composition is well calibrated, the bird is captured in its habitat in full light, and the all works for me. --Harlock81 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Tend to agree about the sharpening (I know I wouldn't have gone that far), but still within acceptable parameters. Everything else is excellent.Crisco 1492 01:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Crisco 1492 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wire-crested_thorntail_(Discosura_popelairii)_female_Wayra.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wire-crested thorntail (Discosura popelairii) female --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Above the QI-bar. --Milseburg 12:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so good. The botom of the bird has too much blurred areas and this is the same thing for the paws. --Sebring12Hrs 20:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me Юрий Д.К. 19:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 20:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lagueirões_-Valongo_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Neighborhood in Valongo --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Left side is leaning out. Otherwise borderline but probably acceptable. --Plozessor 03:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Corrected Perspective -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added two more categories. -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed Dagestan carpet on a felt base --Lvova 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Uneven brightness. Could probably be improved with a reverse radial gradient mask or similar. --Plozessor 03:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • My processing skills are not enough for it... --Lvova 08:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you want, you can use my version and move it to discussions (I will not promote a picture where I was involved). --Plozessor 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you! --Lvova 08:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k.--Ermell 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support 26D 07:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 22 Jun → Mon 30 Jun
  • Mon 23 Jun → Tue 01 Jul
  • Tue 24 Jun → Wed 02 Jul
  • Wed 25 Jun → Thu 03 Jul
  • 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