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 11 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]] 11:12, 11 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 11, 2025

[edit]

June 10, 2025

[edit]

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 29, 2025

[edit]

May 28, 2025

[edit]

May 26, 2025

[edit]

May 25, 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:Rizopolozhensky_Monastery_2024_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Holy Gate in Suzdal --Perituss 20:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality, though I'd reduce the contrast/vibrance a bit. --Crisco 1492 00:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, sorry. All background trees are blurry and have CA's on branches. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Templo_Sri_Vadapathira_Kaliamman,_Singapur,_2023-08-17,_DD_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sri Vadapathira Kaliamman Temple, Singapore --Poco a poco 06:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The top is too distorted IMO --Benjism89 07:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --Poco a poco 16:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's better but I still believe this wide angle view doesn't work (I guess it was impossible to move backwards ?). The light isn't very pleasant either. Feel free to move to Discuss if you want to. --Benjism89 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, yes, please, I'd like to hear other opinions, thank you --Poco a poco 16:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Eleanor,_EMS_23,_Essen_(P1160986).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Mustang "Eleanor" replica at Essen Motor Show 2023 --MB-one 11:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 13:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective should be corrected. And I don't find the image so sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 13:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop on the sides and cluttered background. The latter is probably not the photographer's fault but still, under some conditions you just can't take a quality image. --Plozessor 13:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per plozessor --Smial 14:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS0797).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alfa Romeo Mole Costruzione Artigianale 001 --MB-one 11:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 13:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The back of the car is completly out of focus, more DoF should have been done. --Sebring12Hrs 13:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too small, the windshield is already oof. --Plozessor 13:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)~

File:Mechanisierter-Schildausbau-Anschauungsbergwerk-Bergbaumuseum-Bochum-2025-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mechanized shield support system in a demonstration coal mine of the German Mining Museum in Bochum. The image shows the hydraulic cylinders supporting the roof (overburden) and parts of the armoured face conveyor used to transport mined material along the longwall. This technology was used for decades in deep coal mining. --Tuxyso 06:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is there enough DoF here ? Something bothers me. Sorry but I would like to know what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF could be better, but IMO enough for the situation. --Plozessor 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very interesting, but not sharp enough IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mechanisierter-Schildausbau-Anschauungsbergwerk-Bergbaumuseum-Bochum-2025-03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mechanized shield support system in a demonstration coal mine of the German Mining Museum in Bochum. The image shows the hydraulic support frames in longitudinal view, including the steel canopy elements supporting the roof, the control units, and the maintenance walkway between the supports. --Tuxyso 06:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Is there enough DoF here ? Something bothers me. Sorry but I would like to know what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support In my opinion the motif is shown sufficiently clear. The slightly fading background even yields some deepness.--KaiBorgeest 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Red-backed_Flameback_near_Ella,_Uva,_Sri_Lanka_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-backed Flameback near Ella, Uva, Sri LankaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Satdeep Gill 04:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small (1.9 MP). --Plozessor 16:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: I have cropped the image differently with a bit more margin, earlier it was too tight. I hope it works now. --Satdeep Gill 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, as the resolution is at the absolute minimum, the picture would have to be razor-sharp and perfect in all other aspects at least - which it isn't. --Plozessor 13:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_in_Landau_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stiftskirche in Landau in der Pfalz, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lamp to the right of the lower part of the tower falls strangely, it does not look like this in other photos in the category and on Google panoramas. I'd like to know what's the matter. --Екатерина Борисова 02:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't cancel a vote please, send it to discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Otherwise good quality, the position of this lamp has no influence on the quality of the image. --Sebring12Hrs 13:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I am confident that the lamp is crooked in reality (for whatever reason, maybe someone damaged it the day before). Picture is good otherwise. --Plozessor 13:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment My comment wasn't opposing one, I just didn't understand why the lamp is so crooked - what if it is such a bizarre effect from perspective correction, for example? Now I have an answer, I believe it, and therefore I remove the opposing vote attributed to me. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Electric_Pole_Econy_Nilgiris_Nov24_A7CR_05224.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Electricity distribution to many houses from one pole, Econy, The Nilgiris --Tagooty 01:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The focal point is located somewhere behind the main subject. --Lvova 07:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • The main subject is quite sharp IMO. --Tagooty 15:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova, the main subject is clearly out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the pole and wiring are in good focus. Let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 01:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus seems to be on the small pole in the background, while the big pole in foreground is clearly oof. --Plozessor 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dent_de_Jaman_-_Cairn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cairn at the top of the Dent de Jaman. --Espandero 17:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • This (with a temporary balanced stone) is not a cairn. It might be a work of art... --Charlesjsharp 21:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp: from Wikipedia: "A cairn is a human-made pile (or stack) of stones raised for a purpose, usually as a marker [...] especially to mark the summits of mountains [...]. They vary in size from small piles of stones to entire artificial hills." When I took the picture the pile of rock was marking the summit of the Dent de Jaman. It was there when I reached the top and it was still here when I left. What might have happened to it afterwards is not really our concern. There is no temporality in the definition of a cairn, so to me the pile of rock in this picture is a cairn. Thanks for your understanding. -Espandero 17:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and convincing explanations IMO --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy in front of the mountains. I'd like to see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Outstanding picture of really good quality, except for the grainy shadows and sky. Would clearly support if that was fixed. --Plozessor 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Memorial_de_la_Guerra_Civil,_Singapur,_2023-08-18,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Civilian War Memorial, Singapore --Poco a poco 06:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The upper part of the stele is unsharp and distorted. --Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)
  • Sorry, somehow better, but still under the bar for me. You could try AI denoising on the raw file. --Plozessor 15:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA at the branches should be removed. Otherwise good.--Ermell 06:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  CommentI tried once again. Kindly recheck --Satdeep Gill 16:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 17:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)
  •  Support I think the metal sign looks like overdenoised but it is an optical illusion, compare this picture. --Plozessor 16:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Redeveloped from original @Sebring12Hrs, Frank Schulenburg, Famberhorst, Anna.Massini, and Plozessor: Thanks again, Sebring12Hrs, for your feedback. I've now uploaded a new version, developed from a different frame of the same series - taken 51 seconds earlier and with one full stop more exposure. This time, I've applied only minimal denoising. Your comment kept me thinking. Something didn't sit right, and this morning I realized the issue: I had mistakenly edited a different version than the one I originally intended - an already exported DNG file from a previous edit, which I had forgotten about. So, that's entirely on me - my apologies. I was too sure of myself when replying last night. Thank you sincerely for pointing this out so constructively. I hope the new version is a noticeable improvement. Human error - still running the latest version ;) Best, --Radomianin 22:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Thank you ! I think the textures are more realistic on this last version, especially on the bricks wall. Best. --Sebring12Hrs 08:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:16, 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)
  • Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, Anna. The image is now perfectly centered. I cropped 16 pixels from the right edge to align the brick edge with the geometric center. Best, --Radomianin 06:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure how the picture can illustrate "the soot and fine dust deposits from long-term railway operation" when it intentionally shows wrong colors and we don't know how the wall is looking in reality. Could we have the real colors as an "other version"? --Plozessor 16:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Thank you for your comment and your concern regarding the color accuracy. Unfortunately, I no longer have the original files from that day - only the low-key, direct-to-JPEG versions have survived. These were intentionally processed for artistic effect, which admittedly affects the color rendering. To support the documentary accuracy of the depicted structure, I would like to refer to the following freely accessible image: on bahnbilder.de. It shows a view from platform 4 at Pasewalk station (opposite side of platform 1). In the background, a smaller brick building is visible in front of the larger, lighter-colored structure. This smaller building shows very similar soot and grime deposits on its brick facade - consistent with long-term exposure to rail traffic and industrial emissions. A comparable view of the larger structure is also available on Google Maps when searching for Bahnhof Pasewalk. Unfortunately, Google Maps URLs are flagged as spam on Commons, so I am unable to include a direct link. Pasewalk was, especially before the political changes in East Germany, a much busier railway junction than it is today, which explains the heavy and long-term pollution of the structure. While I regret not being able to provide a neutral version of the image from my own archive, I hope the linked photo helps to support the documentary value of the file in question. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx for the Maps link, now it seems to me that the picture just amplifies the actual colors. Thus supporting (it's also very good in other aspects IMO). --Plozessor 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • It's good to see that sending a map link via Wikimail doesn't trigger the spam filter, unlike adding it to a wiki page. Best :) --Radomianin 22:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:17, 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)
 Comment When I compare this picture to others of the same portal (for instance this one, taken from a distance and with no PC), I really don't think the coat of arms or the putti are significantly elongated by PC. (and it also helps me remember why I didn't take a step backwards, because of this electric wire :( )--Benjism89 18:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The effects of perspective correction can probably be tolerated, but the blown-out areas in the lower part are disturbing. --Plozessor 13:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:18, 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)
  •  Support Focus is clearly on the tree, while the mountains in background are slightly oof. But these mountains are not the subject of the image, it's about the fields in foreground, and these are sharp enough. Yes, it might be better to have the focus point slightly further. But overall the image is over the bar for me. --Plozessor 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is in focus. --KaiBorgeest 21:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:45, 10 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)
  •  Support Good picture. The lamp post is disturbing, but it is there in reality (and I don't think it's distorted but it's merely an optical illusion). Could consider retouching the lamp post, then it would look more aesthetic but be less suitable for the documentary purpose of Commons. --Plozessor 13:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:49, 10 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)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Harlock81 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. Sure, it is difficult to capture a razor-sharp image of a motorbike at high speed, but it doesn't look good as it is. --Plozessor 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • Nomination Hills in Ala-Archa National Park, Chuy Region, Kyrgyzstan. By User:Artelow --Екатерина Борисова 22:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The backgroung, especially the left lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Incall 19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the background is not clear. Anna.Massini 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Anna.Massini and Sebring12Hrs, sorry. --Harlock81 18:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 18:22, 9 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)
     Oppose 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)
  •  Weak support Per Anna Massini - it would be better without the rock, but still good enough. I don't think it is overexposed, just a dog with bright fur. Jakubhal 19:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment So I took the liberty to crop this piece of stone because the image looks really better without it. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:22, 9 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: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)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 11 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)
  •  Support The last version is better. --Sebring12Hrs 21:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 21:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • 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
  • Tue 10 Jun → Wed 18 Jun
  • Wed 11 Jun → Thu 19 Jun