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 09 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]] 13:42, 9 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 9, 2025

[edit]

June 8, 2025

[edit]

June 7, 2025

[edit]

June 6, 2025

[edit]

June 5, 2025

[edit]

June 4, 2025

[edit]

June 3, 2025

[edit]

June 2, 2025

[edit]

June 1, 2025

[edit]

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 22, 2025

[edit]

May 17, 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:Sri_Lanka_green_pigeon_in_Kandy,_Sri_Lanka_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sri Lanka green pigeon in Kandy, Sri Lanka. --Satdeep Gill 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too noisy as is, also significant purple CA. Could be fixed with better raw conversion probably. --Plozessor 02:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Plozessor: ✓ Done I tried fixing things. Check again please. --Satdeep Gill (talk)

File:Andersen's_Blacksmithing_(workshop_building),_Chico.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Workshop building of Andersen's Blacksmithing, Chico, California --Radomianin 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, denoising spoils the composition, every area seems washed and smooth. --Sebring12Hrs 22:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. I respectfully disagree - the denoising and sharpening applied are within reasonable limits and do not negatively affect the composition. I look forward to hearing the opinions of others in the CR area. Best, --Radomianin 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see a problem here. --Frank Schulenburg 22:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Addendum: Enhanced the red brickwork in the right section to improve structure and prevent an overly softened look. I found the rest of the image to be in acceptable condition. Thanks again for the review. Best, --Radomianin 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me.--Famberhorst 04:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg 08:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Anna.Massini 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Clinker_brick_detail_(low-key),_Pasewalk,_2016-09-10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a building corner with soiled clinker brickwork in low-key, Pasewalk, Germany --Radomianin 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, those colors aren't natural to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your review. Yes, the image is intentionally stylized - a low-key shot meant to create an abstract, atmospheric effect (see description). I'm happy to discuss further in the CR section. Best, --Radomianin 22:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem ! --Sebring12Hrs 22:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Addendum: Reduced color intensity and contrast to create a more natural and balanced appearance. Thanks again for the constructive review. Best, --Radomianin 00:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me.--Famberhorst 04:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support the angle is not fixed enough, but the quality is sufficient. -- Anna.Massini 10:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martina_Franca_-_San_Domenico_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martina Franca (Apulia, Italy) - Saint Dominic church - Portal --Benjism89 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Puttos' faces looks a bit strange, probably because of PC. --Lvova 09:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 23:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Wasn't fixed. --Lvova 07:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose The coat of arms and the cherubs appear elongated and narrowed. -- Anna.Massini 10:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fields_Sprinklers_Carrots_Hullathy_Nilgiris_Nov24_A7CR_05241.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fields with sprinklers, carrots in right front. Hullathy, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India --Tagooty 11:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The tree is in focus but not the village/city. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 23:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    Given the great depth, I think the sharpness of the village is sufficient. Let's hear other opinions, please. --Tagooty 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Werzerpromenade_MS_Klagenfurt_04062025_5906.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorship “Klagenfurt” drawing near the Werzerpromenade, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 05:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Lamp post is distorted. Also if this image is about the ship, ithe ship should fill more of the frame wtih the doick and lamp post gone. --GRDN711 15:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good quality in my eyes. I can't see proplems with the lamp. Looking to title, description and categories, I think the Werzerpromenade should be subject too here. So I think composition is okay like this. --Milseburg 11:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Milseburg. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For me sufficient quality Anna.Massini 09:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 09:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ala_Archa_Nature_Park_facing_South_2025-05-10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination One of the valleys of Ala Archa National Park, photographed from the bottom, Chuy Region, Kyrgyzstan. By User:SimPilotAdamT --Екатерина Борисова 22:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Rocks and pebbles are full of purple CAs in the foreground. --Sebring12Hrs 23:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I see some semblance of CA's when looking at the photo in more than full size, but they seem rather insignificant to me. Let's hear what others have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 02:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support I see purple, especially on the left side, but don't think that it is CA. Lvova 07:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can't see purple CAs at full screen on the rocks on the foreground at the middle ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I literally told that I see purple, but don't think that it is CA. See also Tagooty's comment. Lvova 14:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Both of you can't see or don't care about CAs but your are the firsts to see perspective issues on my nominations. This is just totally unfair. --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment First of all, CA and PC are completely different issues. Secondly, I personally don't care who the author or the nominator of the photo is. If I see a problem, I talk about the problem, if I don't see a problem, I support the photo. I've supported a significant number of your nominations, so I think your accusations are unfair too. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There are assorted subtle colours in the rocks. These look natural to me. Overall, a good image. Mild dehazing would improve it further. --Tagooty 12:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is clearly significant purple CA at the rocks in the upper and lower left corner. If these would be rocks with purple elements in reality, the purple parts would not be missing in the middle of the picture and becoming larger towards the edges. There is also a purple fringe over the mountain near the right edge. --Plozessor 03:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-06-01_Motorsport,_IDM,_90._Internationales_Schleizer_Dreieckrennen-_IDM_Superbike_STP_6201.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination IDM, 90. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen: IDM Superbike: Toni Finsterbusch (GER); panning shot --Stepro 22:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too much motion blur. --Sebring12Hrs 23:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Motion blur was the purpose of this photo. --Stepro 01:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bike and driver are not sharp enough. -- Spurzem 08:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ала-Арча_жаратылыш_паркы_(2022-08-13_11-29-06).jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Sorry, but the background is not clear. Anna.Massini 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini-Anna.Massini 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Собака_спит.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dog sleeping on the grass. Ugom-Chatkal national park, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. By User:Галиев Ярослав --Красный 10:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 23:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    The dog's fur is overexposed and lacks details IMO. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI would have cut slightly laterally to remove the stone photographed in half, but I still think it's a good photo Anna.Massini 19:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 19:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Beetroot Plants Hullathy Nov24 A7CR 05174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Field with beetroot (Beta vulgaris), Hullathy, Udhagai taluk, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu --Tagooty 01:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose for now because of misidentification. These shiny leaves are quite different from the dull leaves of Raphanus sativus. This is almost certainly Beta vulgaris. BTW, the preceding image File:Radish_Field_Hullathy_Nov24_A7CR_05179.jpg may be correctly identified. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: ✓ Done Thanks for catching this mistake. I've corrected the description and CAT, and requested renaming of the file. --Tagooty 04:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. I removed my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Haubentaucher_mit_Beute-20250531-RM-163022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe on the old lake in the park of Seehof Castle --Ermell 07:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, sorry --Poco a poco 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 13:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Denoising and sharpening overdone, and even visible in A4 size. --Smial 08:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, probably denoising+sharpening as Smial said. Especially visible at the fish and at the head. --Plozessor 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info @Poco a poco: @Sebring12Hrs: @Smial: @Plozessor: New version uploaded. Please have a look.--Ermell 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Now it's not so heavily processed but the lack of sharpness becomes more obvious. I don't think you can save it. --Poco a poco 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Still borderline for me, removed my opposing vote though. --Plozessor 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Still borderline at full size, but I think it's good enough up to A4 size now. --Smial 10:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20230107_St._Lorenz_Nürnberg_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiraling staircases in the church St. Lorenz in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I performed noise reduction and ask for re-evaluation of the image --FlocciNivis 17:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes it's ok now  Support. --Sebring12Hrs 08:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version seems ok to me. --Plozessor 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --KaiBorgeest 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:AC_BD_Rathaus_Aachen_Marktturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City Hall of Aachen, Germany --Grunpfnul 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but f/5.6 is not enough here. ISO 200 and 1/680 sec gives room for more depth of field. --Stepro 12:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    • At 8mm with f5.6, the Main Subject (Tower) is more than in Focus and Even the City hall is in Focus. If a realy midly unsharp background isn't allowed anymore… --Grunpfnul 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
      • I'm not interested in the background either, but the figure on the top of the tower is so out of focus that I can't even tell what it's supposed to represent. That wouldn't be such a big problem for me if it hadn't been very easy to prevent. As I wrote: at 1/680 there was enough room for more dop. --Stepro 09:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absurd perspective. Architectural verticals here, architectural verticals there - if you also correct the perspective of a photo with an already very large 120° angle of view, the result may still be geometrically correct, but this is not an architectural photo, but a caricature. “But you got everything in the frame” is not a sign of quality. Sorry for the harsh words, they are not meant personally, but these extreme wide-angle perspectives have generally got out of hand and I find them terrible. --Smial 09:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Oh, i won't take it personally, but youself did some pc correction work like this - which wonders me, in view of your comment. I never wrote something like "i got everything in the Frame" and i respect your opinion, but then we should expand the rules of QI to "no pc needed for ultra wide angle" or "No Ultra wide angle pictures allowed on QI". Grunpfnul (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the given camera location exact? If so, was there a reason why you didn't step further back to get a more realistic perspective? --Plozessor 17:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Plozessor: There are Benches and Lamp-Posts in the way, if i stepped further back. As already happened, that would surely get me an "There is XY in the view, which spills the image" - sometimes its getting strange here. Grunpfnul (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support in that case. I could not find any better image of this perspective; some "professional" pictures are even more distorted. And in all other aspects it's IMO very good. --Plozessor 03:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the building looks too distorted and unnatural. Also the spire is very blurry and looks like a lump of something. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and great shot. --Tournasol7 12:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Tournasol7 12:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martina_Franca_-_Porta_di_Santo_Stefano_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martina Franca (Apulia, Italy) - St. Stephen's city gate --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted. --Lvova 13:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The perspective correction is well done. --Tournasol7 06:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the perspective correction was done well. It could be much better with just a little effort. See here. I would rate this image as QI. Aside from that, I don't understand the file name. The statue above depicts Saint Martin. Why is it called Porta_di_Santo_Stefano? -- Spurzem 18:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment The photographer may not be positioned right in front and center of the door in reality. In your version, it seems that the photographer is refocused again, but is this really more realistic ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: In many cases, I would try to position myself so that I am aligned with the building / gate I'm photographing, and then correct horizontal perpective so that the image is symmetric. But in this case, the passage under the gate is not perpendicular to the axis of the gate, so it isn't possible to align with both the gate and the passage under it. For this reason (and also because there were unaesthetic construction works right behind the gate), I chose not to align myself with the gate. As Sebring12Hrs wrote, I don't believe correcting such a large unalignment afterwards is a good idea, your version looks strange in my opinion. --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment And about the name of this picture : well, the name of this gate is Porta di Santo Stefano, although it's carrying the statue of another saint (which is the patron saint of the city so there are statues of saint Martin pretty much everywhere). Sorry but I don't decide on proper names :-) --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to perspective correction, it looks like the lower part of the gate is narrower than the upper one, which obviously does not correspond to reality. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to me that the gate, not the picture, is leaning. --Plozessor 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    In the category it's not like this. Lvova 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Lvova 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_Dark_Horse_Rutesheimer_Autoschau_2025_DSC_9225.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Mustang Dark Horse at Rutesheimer Autoschau 2025 --Alexander-93 18:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Cluttered background --Jakubhal 08:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A car in it's normal "habitat" somewhere in the traffic space, here a parking place. --Milseburg 10:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 10:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20221018_Ulmer_Tor_Memmingen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View along the Ulmer Straße to the Ulmer Tor in Memmingen --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Facades are too dark. --Sebring12Hrs 13:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that. Is this okay now? --FlocciNivis 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, discussion has not be resolved here --Jakubhal 08:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good lighting -- Spurzem 12:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. The actual subject - the gate - is properly lit; the dark shadows and strong contrasts are causing an interesting (for me, appealing) look. --Plozessor 10:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. However, the dark areas could be brightened up a little with curves. --Smial 11:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Every day, I'm more and more amazed at what is being rated as a quality image here. Conversely, I'm also surprised at the good photos that are being downgraded. -- Spurzem 09:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I have the same feeling but I don't refer to the same pictures. Here FlocciNivis increased brightness. --Sebring12Hrs 10:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 14:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks underexposed to me. --Milseburg 20:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now --Jakubhal 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20220702_Aphantopus_hyperantus_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Ringlet in the bird sanctuary Ismaninger Speichersee und Fischteiche --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support My issue here is overexposure of a flower, however there is no issue with sharpness here and I think it's still worth discussion --Jakubhal 08:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose since the flower (that the ringlet sits on) is completely blown out. Sharpness is very good though. --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that now. Thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak supportfor Jakubhal and I find it a beautiful composition Anna.Massini 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 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)
  •  Support Fine for me --GoldenArtists 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --GoldenArtists 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 01 Jun → Mon 09 Jun
  • Mon 02 Jun → Tue 10 Jun
  • Tue 03 Jun → Wed 11 Jun
  • Wed 04 Jun → Thu 12 Jun
  • Thu 05 Jun → Fri 13 Jun
  • Fri 06 Jun → Sat 14 Jun
  • Sat 07 Jun → Sun 15 Jun
  • Sun 08 Jun → Mon 16 Jun
  • Mon 09 Jun → Tue 17 Jun