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 31 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]] 17:26, 31 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 31, 2025

[edit]

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 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:Private_Palace,_Pasargadae_-_Columns.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columns in the Private Palace (Palace P), Pasargadae, Iran --Bgag 02:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some columns blurry, insufficient DoF. --Tagooty 03:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support the main elements in the foreground are in focus. Not bad, imho. --Harlock81 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 11:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Marriott,_Nicoll_Highway,_Singapur,_2023-08-16,_DD_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marriott Hotel, Nicoll Highway, Singapore --Poco a poco 08:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but this looks too distorted to me. Not really sharp. I think you should have less sky and more ground in the compo --Benjism89 11:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    I made some improvements, over the bar now I believe, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
    Composition is much better now, thanks ! But I still feel the top of the building is too distorted and not really sharp,  Weak oppose --Benjism89 17:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is more than OK to me, every sharp at the very top of the building. --Tuxyso 20:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, cannot see the real shape of the building. --Kallerna 09:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Otranto_-_Cava_di_bauxite_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Otranto (Apulia, Italy) - Lake created by an abandoned bauxite mine --Benjism89 06:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is not good --Poco a poco 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 10:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Орехово,_хаски.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Huskie in Orekhovo --Lvova 06:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The left area is not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 20:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
    Cropped. --Lvova 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Both previous crops were better than the last one, imho. The left-hand side of the dog (face and side) is just a spot of white, without any detail of the fur. --Harlock81 10:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you. I returned the first crop, so kind of withdraw :) Lvova 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Marktstrasse_45_in_Landau_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marktstraße 45 in Landau in der Pfalz, Rhineland-Pal., Germany. --Tournasol7 06:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The straightening of the perspective gave the impression that the pediment is at an angle to the building. This is not true. --Lvova 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Lvova: Sorry, I didn't get it. Are you referring to the top of the roof? May you explain, please? --Harlock81 10:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    pediment :) Yes, it can be said the top of the roof. A distortion arises, as if the front facade and pediment are not located in one line, but at a very obtuse, but still angle. Lvova 17:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 10:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A fragment of a Japanese lamp from the 18th century --Lvova 06:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline bottom crop. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 16:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mary_Magdalene_church_in_Gramond_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mary Magdalene church in Gramond, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Domob 05:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC) )
  •  Oppose The tower tends to fall down because of PC. --Lvova 20:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lvova is right. The general effect is unrealistic. --Harlock81 09:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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)
  •  Oppose Photo is overprocessed. --Tuxyso 20:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tuxyso --Smial 00:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tuxyso 20:17, 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: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)
  • weak  Support quality is OK, but the cropped should be improved (see suggestion of Smial) --Tuxyso 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tuxyso 20:21, 30 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: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]
  • 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
  • Sat 31 May → Sun 08 Jun