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 August 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 August 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 August 05 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]] 02:13, 5 August 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).


August 5, 2025

[edit]

August 4, 2025

[edit]

August 3, 2025

[edit]

August 2, 2025

[edit]

August 1, 2025

[edit]

July 31, 2025

[edit]

July 30, 2025

[edit]

July 29, 2025

[edit]

July 28, 2025

[edit]

July 27, 2025

[edit]

July 26, 2025

[edit]

July 25, 2025

[edit]

July 24, 2025

[edit]

July 23, 2025

[edit]

July 21, 2025

[edit]

July 20, 2025

[edit]

July 19, 2025

[edit]

July 18, 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:Бенчмарка_в_Центральном_районе_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Benchmark --Lvova 08:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Looks like blurry, but maybe I'm wrong and it's just an optical illusion. So I'd like to hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 02:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me, I think it seems blurred just because of the texture of the object. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support A bit blurry on the right-hand part. The definition should have been more uniform. --Harlock81 12:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Door_knocker_in_Coimbra_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Door knocker in Coimbra, Portugal --Bgag 02:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I find it a little underexposed. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Please discuss --Bgag 11:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Exposure is fine imo. QI --ArildV 14:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good like that. --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find it underexposed. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

File:20230212_Luitpoldbrücke_Passau_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View to the Luitpold Bridge in Passau with fog --FlocciNivis 06:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose uninteresting framing --Bzh-99 10:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting framing. --Sebring12Hrs 12:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well executed picture in a foggy day. Good definition, the noise over the dark surfaces is minimum. --Harlock81 16:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Harlock --Jakubhal 17:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support “Uninteresting frame” is a matter of taste, but not a sign of quality. --XRay 10:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 14:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 19:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 05:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Кобона,_плетистые_розы_в_саду_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Climbing roses in private garden, Kobona village, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Subject not in focus. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  • With an aperture of f/5.6, it is not possible to achieve the depth of field that would be necessary for such a subject. --Syntaxys 14:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I can understand opposing because of DoF, but it is in focus, so let's continue the discussion. Lvova 21:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is just above the QI bar to me. So it would be ok if the focus was good. Here it is blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 22:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:CuraBrochero-IglesiaSagradaEucaristia-CABA.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue to Jose Gabriel del Rosario Brochero, Saint Eucharisty church, CABA, Argentina --Ezarate 22:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image has an unpleasant yellow tint and is therefore not a quality image for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC) fixed, thanks! --Ezarate 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It's better now, but it looks a bit grey. -- Spurzem (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
    I've added another version. I now like the image. -- Spurzem 06:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3882.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: reading lesson and punishment of a pupil. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 21:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • In all you QICs of frescos, who is the author, and you arent the owner of copyright, you only take the picture, --Ezarate 22:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Ezarate: those are frescoes from Pompeii, they are roughly two thousands years old, nobody knows the author, of course I'm just the photographer. --Phyrexian 00:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadow on the top and sides --Bzh-99 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the framing. --Espandero 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the framing. Quality is good. --Plozessor 04:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3888.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: sale of foodstuffs near an arch. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 21:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadow on the top and sides --Bzh-99 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the framing. --Espandero 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the framing. Quality is good. --Plozessor 04:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3889.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: sale of a slave girl. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 21:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadow on the top and sides --Bzh-99 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the framing. --Espandero 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the framing. Quality is good. --Plozessor 04:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3892.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: mule with load and three men. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 21:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadow on the top and sides --Bzh-99 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the framing. --Espandero 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support If you wanted to avoid the shadows, you would have had to flash the image head-on, and the structure and texture of the surface would have been lost. For me, the shadows are acceptable as they are. --Syntaxys 14:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the framing, and agree with Syntaxys when it comes to the shadows. Quality is good. --Plozessor 04:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3896.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: sale of shoes; scribe and equestrian statue. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 21:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadow on the top and sides --Bzh-99 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the framing. --Espandero 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support If you wanted to avoid the shadows, you would have had to flash the image head-on, and the structure and texture of the surface would have been lost. For me, the shadows are acceptable as they are. --Syntaxys 14:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the framing and agree with Syntaxys on the shadows. Quality is good. --Plozessor 04:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 10:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_du_Christ-Roi_des_Houches.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The statue of Christ the King at Les Houches, built in 1934, France. --Espandero 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • It's overprocessed. --Syntaxys 04:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Trop de bruit, notamment sur la partie haute de la statue / Too noisy at the top of the statue. --Bzh-99 08:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bzh-99: I think you're confusing the aspect of the concrete with noise. There can't be that much noise at ISO 160 on a surface that's not too dark or too bright. Some parts of the statue are a bit blurry, but the overall quality should be enough for QI. --Espandero 13:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not so bad, given that it was taken from 400 m distance. But I'm wondering why some parts seem sharp and others seem blurry. Was it AI processed or is it a stitching of multiple images? --Plozessor 04:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Plozessor: I honestly don't know why. It's not a stitching. I've looked at the 5 different pictures I've taken of the statue and they are all like that. Maybe there was some dirt on the lens... --Espandero 09:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 18:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 22:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Barrage_des_Houches_depuis_Merlet.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Les Houches dam as seen from the car park at Merlet park, Les Houches, France. --Espandero 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {o} Not an expert commoner, but to me, many elements seem overprocessed, with strange artefacts and lacking detail. --Super nabla 08:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC) EDIT: The image has improved.Super nabla 15:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Super nabla: I've uploaded a new version. If you could put a note on things that look weird that'd be very helpful. --Espandero 13:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The new version is better, but still too heavily edited. That's not necessary at all with an image like this. It was taken in very good lighting conditions and is sharp, so why does it need so much editing? Unfortunately, I often see this in your images, which would otherwise be very good. --Syntaxys 14:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Syntaxys: I've tried new things recently while editing my pictures as I wanted to be more "complete". I'm gonna go back to what I used to do because I've been getting far more problems with my noms since. --Espandero 09:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed "with strange artifacts and lacking detail" as said above. As if there would have been significant sensor noise and that you have been fixed with AI denoising, though there should not be too much sensor noise at ISO 160 with an APS-C camera. --Plozessor 04:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: Sorry, but your review seems a rejection to me, yet you supported the promotion of the image. Is there a typo? --Harlock81 10:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, thx for noticing. --Plozessor 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bratislava,_2018_(16).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hviezdoslavovo námestie (Hviezdoslav's Square), Bratislava --Draceane 10:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • CAs... --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Draceane 21:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but there are a lot of CAs again. --Sebring12Hrs 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    Another try to fix the CA. --Draceane 08:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful impression of this street. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 06:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Few CAs at left, but this is better. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Images with fewer CAs have already been rejected 😉 and the contrasts are very high. You could certainly lighten the shadows a little more. --Syntaxys 13:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Czesław_Marchewczyk_square,_view_from_W,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Czesław Marchewczyk square, view from W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Right side is leaning in, probably also tilted --Poco a poco 06:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done Is it okay now? Igor123121 17:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    That's better. Please, add at least one existing category and overall is the detail level not so good, can you sharpen it? --Poco a poco 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done Igor123121 08:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, category is there, thank you, but the sharpening not. I see no new version of the file. --Poco a poco 08:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: ✓ Done --Igor123121 15:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is clearly leaning, even the modern building is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: , @Poco a poco: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The vertical lines are still not completely straight and the image appears heavily edited or compressed, visible especially at the top of the sky next to the street lamp. --Syntaxys 13:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 10:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosensteintunnel_(2021)_1X7A0042.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosensteintunnel Stuttgart --Alexander-93 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Very distorted and PC is needed at left. --Sebring12Hrs 20:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the image was taken with a fisheye lens. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 12:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fish-eye lens maybe was not the best choice for a so close subject. The level of distortion is really very high. --Harlock81 05:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 22:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Szczepańska_Street,_view_to_NW,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Szczepańska Street, view to NW, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit leaning at right. --Sebring12Hrs 19:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    And this is not very sharp regarding the camera. --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Leaning at right and sharpness could be higher. --Harlock81 05:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 28 Jul → Tue 05 Aug
  • Tue 29 Jul → Wed 06 Aug
  • Wed 30 Jul → Thu 07 Aug
  • Thu 31 Jul → Fri 08 Aug
  • Fri 01 Aug → Sat 09 Aug
  • Sat 02 Aug → Sun 10 Aug
  • Sun 03 Aug → Mon 11 Aug
  • Mon 04 Aug → Tue 12 Aug
  • Tue 05 Aug → Wed 13 Aug