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 22 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]] 02:00, 22 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 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 15, 2025

[edit]

May 14, 2025

[edit]

May 13, 2025

[edit]

May 12, 2025

[edit]

May 11, 2025

[edit]

May 10, 2025

[edit]

May 9, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 2025

[edit]

May 6, 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:Hôpital_Richaud,_Versailles_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hôpital Richaud, Versailles --Sebring12Hrs 06:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Mostly out of focus. Sorry. --Mosbatho 09:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that is not the best focus ever, but I think it's enough for QI. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness/DoF is not perfect but it's still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 11:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Smial 22:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Piszkowice_53_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 53 Piszkowice 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. --Plozessor 11:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Krumme_Lake,_Grünau_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination NSG Krumme Lake, Grünau --Georgfotoart 10:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CAs ! --Sebring12Hrs 14:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, there are chromatic aberration everywhere. IMO not feasible to fix without a RAW conversion from scratch --Jakubhal 06:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Significant CA, not very detailed, overcontrasted. Could probably be fixed with better raw conversion from scatch, as Jakubhal indicated. --Plozessor 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Livraria_LELLO_Porto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination th prize worldwide in Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. By User:Afsalgado --TOUMOU 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 11:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Jakubhal 06:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise unfortunately, though great image otherwise. --Plozessor 02:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 02:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:MG_6886_Ιπποτών.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image was awarded with the 21th prize worldwide in Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. By User:Aneza Palaiou --TOUMOU 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Impressive but there is a big purple fringe under the arch, at the limit between stones and sky. There are other areas with purple CAs/fringes. --Sebring12Hrs 10:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 11:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done. --Sebring12Hrs 11:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and noise. --Plozessor 02:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 02:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Lecce_-_Santa_Croce_-_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lecce (Apulia, Italy) - Basilica of the Holy Cross - Façade --Benjism89 05:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top portion is not sharp. --Rohit14400 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Come on, what is not sharp here ? Ridiculous. --Sebring12Hrs 07:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the top of the facade is a bit blurry, still a good photo overall --Jakubhal 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good--GoldenArtists 08:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Acceptable sharpness but distorted (leaning to the right). --Plozessor 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Lecce_-_Santa_Croce_-_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lecce (Apulia, Italy) - Basilica of the Holy Cross - Central part of the first storey of the façade --Benjism89 05:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not quite sharp. --Rohit14400 06:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very sharp, I really don't understand the decline. --Sebring12Hrs 07:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is OK here --Jakubhal 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good --GoldenArtists 08:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like people in the picture by chance, but no problem about quality. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bandeja_de_diseño_de_cuentas_para_bisutería_A74005620250517.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bead design tray for jewelry. --Rjcastillo 04:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The rectangle should be a rectangle. Perspective distortion IMO. --Lmbuga 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done enough, I think. Only the underside is acceptable. Sorry, Not QI IMO --Lmbuga 03:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Comment New version. --Rjcastillo 04:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. --Plozessor 02:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 02:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Avestruz_(Struthio_camelus),_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-22,_DD_62.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common ostrich (Struthio camelus), Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but there is too much noise and the focus isn't very good. Feel free to send it to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • yes, please. You are pushing it hard --Poco a poco 20:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Jakubhal 06:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great photo, but IMO sharpness does not meet QI standards. Also the subject is too dark. Probably it could be improved with better raw conversion (denoising the ostrich and then making it sharper and brighter, and reducing the highlights in the background). --Plozessor 03:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I failed to upload the right file. ✓ New version. Please, let me know what you think, to me this is a clear QI. Poco a poco 10:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ah, makes sense. New version is not perfect but clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 11:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Yes, this version is over the bar now --Jakubhal 12:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 11:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Brown_inca_(Coeligena_wilsoni)_in_flight_Paz_de_las_Aves_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brown inca (Coeligena wilsoni) --Charlesjsharp 09:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice, but IMO the noise reduction is too extreme and some details are lost. I'd rather have some grain. --Kadellar 10:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 14:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I still think the details are washed out. --Kadellar 21:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose per Kadellar. Great shot, but denoising and sharpening lead to some artifacts visible even in A4 size print. --Smial 09:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 18:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 18:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Olkhon_Island,_Sand_dunes_and_dancing_pines_on_the_beach,_Lake_Baikal,_Russia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saraisky Beach very early in the morning. Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal. --Argenberg 12:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 09:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark and quite strong noise --Jakubhal 10:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The light is very adequate and precise for an early morning, stormy, heavily overcast sky. I also don’t see any significant noise here. --Argenberg 18:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The lighting is not very attractive, but doesn't seem unnatural to me. Perhaps a slight brightening could help to show the details in the dark areas of the picture better, but you have to be very careful to avoid ugly clipping of individual colour channels in the sky. I consider the image noise to be acceptable; it is only distracting if you zoom in extremely. The technical quality is sufficient for A4 prints in any case. --Smial 09:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop on top, unbalanced composition. --Kadellar 18:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma noise that could be removed. Exposure and composition are probably not matching everyone's taste, but would be ok for me. --Plozessor 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:SaintMaryFornaci_outside.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SaintMaryFornaci outside --SaintMaryFornaci 08:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, backlit photo, and blue CAs on the top cross. --Sebring12Hrs 09:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I increased the light and removed the ca,how is it now?--SaintMaryFornaci 12:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very good, but it remains CAs on the cross. --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark (especially foreground vs. sky), also slightly tilted and with blue tint. I took the freedom to fix it, see here. If you want you can use that version, or you can apply similar fix yourself. --Plozessor 08:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Abstain as I was involved. --Plozessor 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment As per usual, your version is very good ! --Sebring12Hrs 08:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Ü
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bad_Bergzabern_Castle_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Bad Bergzabern Castle, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm surprised that T. always takes his photos in the morning when it's still almost dark. -- Spurzem 12:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks underexposed to me and a slightly tighter crop would be beneficial. Also portal should be clearly identified (which side of castle?) in the image description. --GRDN711 17:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too dark, brightest spot is around 67 %. Can be easily fixed though (otherwise it is very good). @Tournasol7 As many of your pictures are so dark, may I ask whether that is intentional? Do you like it that way? Or is just your monitor set too bright? Unless there's a specific reason (like a picture meant to show nightfall or so), it's usually good to use the brightness range that 8-bit RGB gives us (with the brightest spot near 100 % and the darkest spot near 0 %). --Plozessor 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would this be a better version? I'm asking because I'm currently learning about image editing. --Petro Stelte 15:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Better version of course. --Sebring12Hrs 15:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Until the nominator responds. --Petro Stelte 10:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Peter-Behrens-Bau-Oberhausen-Panorma-2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the former warehouse of the Gutehoffnungshütte in Oberhausen, now part of the LVR Industrial Museum. The viewing angle is approximately 180°. --Tuxyso 06:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Too me okay. However, I would like to have discussed in detail whether such distortions in panoramas comply with QI standards. The facade is actually straight. The panorama projection creates the impression of a curved facade. I recall that such distortions were rejected as too severe, as they affect the main subject. On the other hand, the viewing angle would otherwise be impossible to depict. --Milseburg 12:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Interesting question. With that viewing angle a linear projection is impossible. The verticals are straight and I think the overall quality is very high here. --Tuxyso 13:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I know. Sorry for using your panorama to spark a fundamental discussion. In landscape panoramas with a large distance to the subject, such projection-related distortions are minor and generally not a problem. However, in architectural photos taken at close range, the distortions are noticeable. I'd like to know to what extent this is tolerated and accepted here. --Milseburg 13:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At least three stitching errors, probably more. Also moire. And the distortion - I could accept spherical projection, but this seems like a combination of projections. As if there would have been two separate panoramas with spherical projection and then these two would have been stitched with another projection. In any case, the picture does not resemble reality at all. --Plozessor 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Even a spherical projection wouldn't be able to reproduce this at a 180° viewing angle without significant distortion. I don't know of any suitable projection method, and I don't know how to achieve it better. --Milseburg 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • That is true of course. I might consider supporting it if the stitching errors were fixed (there is a very big one at ca. 7600/1000 pixels and several others) and all verticals would be vertical. --Plozessor 03:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I did not use a combination of projections — this is simply the default panorama projection method embedded in Lightroom. As I understood Milseburg, his intention was to initiate a general discussion about whether architectural panoramas with wide angles of view can qualify as QI at all. Personally, I find it paradoxical if such images were fundamentally disqualified — high-quality images should be possible even with very wide angles of view.

I must admit I overlooked the stitching errors. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I won't be able to correct them. --Tuxyso 20:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)


Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 17:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Blässhuhn_(April_2025).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eurasian coot (Fulica atra) in the nest on the pond Kirchteich in the Südpark district in Halle (Saale)-Neustadt, Germany . --Romzig 14:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The branche at the front is very disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Yes, the branch is there—the situation didn't allow for any other perspective, and the branch can't be removed. I still like the image, and I'm putting it up for election. You decide.. --Romzig 17:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can also decide: The branche at the front is very disturbing. As Sebring12Hrs--Lmbuga 02:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image and besides the branche it is really good. A removal of the branche was not possible, so no problem. --Alexander-93 10:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The bird is very well represented, with many details. There are elements in the nest that disturb the view, yet it would not be possible take a picture of it without those elements. From me, it is an unavoidable compromise. --Harlock81 11:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Harlock81. --Plozessor 17:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Harlock81 -- Екатерина Борисова 00:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good --GoldenArtists 08:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 17:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:LH_404,_D-AIGV,_Frankfurt_(P1033607).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lufthansa flight 404 to New York JFK Airport operated by an Airbus A340-313 (registration D-AIGV) in Star Alliance livery takes off from runway 07C of Frankfurt International Airport --MB-one 13:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Too dark for now --Jakubhal 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
*  Oppose Not fixed after a week --Jakubhal 04:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 16:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Better, thank you. But still a bit dark and not the best details. I would leave it for other reviewers to decide Jakubhal 09:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also see it dark, but the worst thing is the halos due perhaps to chromatic aberration.--Lmbuga 17:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 18:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Wojska_Polskiego_9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 9 Wojska Polskiego Street in Duszniki-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 06:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 10:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 09:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to sharpness/jpeg compression issues, very noticeable in the trees and wall. --Kadellar 18:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise, not sharp, also too dark subject compared to the bright background. --Plozessor 03:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2025._Dicksonia_antarctica._Osmunda_regalis._Miscanthus_sinensis_Andersson._Alameda_de_Santiago._Galiza.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Ok for me. The sunlit leaves are very bright but IMO it's not overexposed. --Plozessor 06:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor Jakubhal 06:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition also. --Harlock81 11:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:White-Rose-Sitia-Crete.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White Rose. Sitia Crete. --Petro Stelte 11:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Ermell 13:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good now.--Ermell 15:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Ermell, sorry--Lmbuga 02:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Otherwise good but way too dark. --Plozessor 06:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the image is otherwise OK, I'm happy. Thanks guys. I'm still learning. --Petro Stelte 12:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • But you can simply brighten it like I did here (or use my version) and then it could be promoted. --Plozessor 03:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just uploaded Plozessor's version. It looks much better. Thanks! --Petro Stelte 04:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI after the new upload --Jakubhal 10:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried brightening the image myself. What do you think? click here --Petro Stelte 13:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now--Lmbuga 16:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good --GoldenArtists 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Avefría_armada_(Vanellus_armatus),_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-22,_DD_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blacksmith lapwing (Vanellus armatus), Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose CAs on the bird and the back of the bord out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    A bold review, the easy fix of the CA is done, otherwise it's a QI, please, let's dicuss --Poco a poco 12:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Ermell 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality also for me.--Harlock81 11:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good --GoldenArtists 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 11:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Avestruces_(Struthio_camelus),_reserva_natural_Masái_Mara,_Kenia,_2024-05-20,_DD_96.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common ostrichs (Struthio camelus), Masai Mara, Kenya --Poco a poco 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. Feel free to go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 14:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support With two megapixels, a photo can be QI if it's sharp. But this photo is quite sharp with many more megapixels. Maybe the standards need updating.. --Lmbuga 03:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is borderline indeed, but picture is still above the bar for me. --Plozessor 06:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    Not borderline, clearly under the bar... --Sebring12Hrs 09:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    Better now since NR was applied. --Sebring12Hrs 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 17:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Avestruz_(Struthio_camelus),_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-22,_DD_61.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common ostrich (Struthio camelus), Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. Feel free to go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 14:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It`s not FP. Clear QI IMO --Lmbuga 03:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Quite soft indeed, but good enough for QI IMO --Jakubhal 06:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal. --Harlock81 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Avutarda_kori_(Ardeotis_kori),_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-23,_DD_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kori bustard (Ardeotis kori), Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 09:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Chroma noise on the body since the noise reduction was applied. --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice and good picture --Lmbuga 03:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough.--Alexander-93 20:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good --GoldenArtists 08:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Kadellar 18:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:শ্বেতাক্ষী_(Zosterops_palpebrosus),_হাজারিখিল_বন্যপ্রাণী_অভয়ারণ্য,_বাংলাদেশ.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian white-eye (Zosterops palpebrosus), Hajarikhil Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. By User:Rusho127 --Moheen 08:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Area with noise and area with no noise. --Sebring12Hrs 21:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good eyes and good composition --Lmbuga 03:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall ok for me. --Plozessor 06:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The eye could be sharper, but overall the quality is imho sufficient. --Harlock81 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 16:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Old_town_hall_of_Bad_Bergzabern_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old town hall of Bad Bergzabern, Rhineland-Pal., Germany. --Tournasol7 06:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In a quality image, I imagine the lighting of a town hall differently. What do others think about this? -- Spurzem 13:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, the shadowy side is just too dark. Could probably be improved with better raw conversion, but ideally should take the picture at a different time of the day. --Plozessor 06:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a quality image, I'd leave the desirable time of the day for FP. --Kadellar 18:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Kadellar 18:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Marktkirche_in_Bad_Bergzabern_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Marktkirche in Bad Bergzabern, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see that two respected users think this photo is good, but I just can't agree. The tower looks so unnaturally distorted that it just seems like a caricature. I know that I have little chance of understanding, because it is customary here to support such images, but still, let's discuss whether such a distortion is acceptable. This is especially true for the educational purposes of the project, since the image, which strongly distorts the real appearance of the building, has a low educational value IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I tend to accept such perspective if there's no other way because the photographer just can't get further away from the subject. Here however, at least if the coordinates are correct, here he could easily have gone 20 m more to the south to take the picture with less distortion. Also the shadowy part has a blue tint. With both issues it's slightly under the bar for me. --Plozessor 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's overdistorted. i can't see any blue tint here... When I look which images are promotted I don't understand why this one shouldn't be. --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs: In the shadowy part at the bottom, the EV station is #466b83 and the bollard next to it is #6a99b8, both is clearly blue though these objects are grey/white in reality. --Plozessor 03:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction was unsuccessful, and therefore, despite its perfect sharpness, the photo cannot be classified as a quality image in my opinion. There is now a second version in which the shadows are also slightly brightened. But this image isn't really that good either. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, if we always get "perspective correction needed" reviews with minimal leaning, then how can there be complaints when buildings are perfectly straight but get slightly distorted? There are a lot of existing QI much more distorted than this one. I prefer less perspective correction, but it's what's being pushed here in QIC. --Kadellar 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    I couldn't have said it better ! --Sebring12Hrs 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Maybe we'll just stop support the images that are perfectly straigtened, but strongly distorts the real appearance of depicted buildings? This is an old song like "If our ancestors did this, then we will do the same," which does not improve the situation at all, but only multiplies the number of technically good, but ugly and unrealistic images, and, among other things, does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry I just disagree. A leaning building is also ugly and unrealistic. --Sebring12Hrs 06:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, of course, a heavily leaning building also looks unrealistic, and I do not suggest approving such images. But when we decline images where the building is tilted by half a degree, but approve images where the building is vertical, but as badly distorted as here, we are not making the QI project better and are simply disorienting both the photographers and those people who will use these images, believing that images like this one are the best that is in the Commons. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And I prefer no distortion instead of "perspective correction needed" reviews. Lvova 10:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes? Lvova 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Alción_estriado_(Halcyon_chelicuti),_reserva_natural_Masái_Mara,_Kenia,_2024-05-20,_DD_97.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Striped kingfisher (Halcyon chelicuti), Masai Mara, Kenya --Poco a poco 18:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Ok thanks, better ! --Sebring12Hrs 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, QI in my eyes, please, let's discuss and I would also ask for a chance first to improve the images before a straight decline --Poco a poco 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, otherwise ok now. --Plozessor 07:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 18:45, 20 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 11:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Catania_BW_2025-04-25_15-35-48.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italien, Catania, Chiesa San Francesco all'ImmacolataIch, der Urheber dieses Werkes, veröffentliche es unter der folgenden Lizenz: --Berthold Werner 15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church looks unnaturally distorted due to very strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --Harlock81 07:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted. Suggest to skew it like here (or use my version). --Plozessor 15:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree, this version is far away better. --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Your version looks really good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)


✓ Done Please check again. --Berthold Werner 09:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Better and QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now, thanks. --Harlock81 11:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 14 May → Thu 22 May
  • Thu 15 May → Fri 23 May
  • Fri 16 May → Sat 24 May
  • Sat 17 May → Sun 25 May
  • Sun 18 May → Mon 26 May
  • Mon 19 May → Tue 27 May
  • Tue 20 May → Wed 28 May
  • Wed 21 May → Thu 29 May
  • Thu 22 May → Fri 30 May