Commons:QIC

↓ 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

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

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
  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
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

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

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

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

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

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

<translate nowrap><!--T:35-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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:

<translate nowrap><!--T:38-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 15 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

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

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

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations


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]] 05:25, 15 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 15, 2025

June 14, 2025

June 13, 2025

June 12, 2025

June 11, 2025

June 10, 2025

June 9, 2025

June 8, 2025

June 7, 2025

June 6, 2025

June 5, 2025

June 4, 2025

June 3, 2025

June 2, 2025

May 31, 2025

May 29, 2025

Consensual review

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:Acker-Distel_südwestlich_von_Zell_am_Ebersberg.jpg

  • Nomination Cirsium arvense southwest of Zell am Ebersberg --Plozessor 03:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Llez 05:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    High quality but to dark imo. --ArildV 05:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Please do not reset already promoted image; move to discussions instead. --Plozessor 07:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    It is the result of an edit conflict - it happens when a user promotes at the same time as another user posts a comment. --ArildV 07:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support The bottom part is a bit darker, but that is not a problem IMO. Exceptional details/sharpness and overall good quality --Jakubhal 17:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:GAZ-24_Volga._Chilonzor_street,_Tashkent,_Uzbekistan.jpg

  • Nomination GAZ-24 Volga. Chilonzor street, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. --Jamshid Nurkulov 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose The vehicle is too distorted, and the right part of the hood is too bright. In my opinion, this is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- ~~~~Category:Pages with unsubstituted signatures

File:Ferrari_Purosangue_MYLE_Festival_2025_DSC_9651.jpg

  • Nomination Ferrari Purosangue at MYLE Festival 2025 --Alexander-93 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 14:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose A rare car. But the image is cropped too tightly. The front and the wheel area could be brightened a bit. And the surroundings don't match the car. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dogo_Argentino_in_a_field.jpg

  • Nomination Dogo Argentino in a field --Surfinsi 17:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Head is out of focus. Not enough categories. --A.Savin 05:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Interboot_2023,_Friedrichshafen_(P1130265).jpg

  • Nomination SAR dog "Jerry von der Hohen Mark" of the DLRG shakes off water after a water rescue excercise --MB-one 10:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the dog itself looks OK, but that man cut off at the waist is disturbing. Let's discuss whether it's a problem for QI or not. --Jakubhal 04:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    No problem in my opinion. I assume the person is the dog handler, and not a random person. And therefore not disturbing. A good composition imo. --ArildV 05:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment If it is its handler, why not A) rotate the camera 90 degrees and take a photo of both, or B) walk two steps to the left and take a picture of the dog without the handler's body cut in half? Jakubhal 11:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Another composition is possible, but not necessarily better. I think that the dog handler's presence adds something. A rotated image would have been something completely different. I would have preferred a slightly tighter crop, though. --ArildV 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, but I don't see the handler's presence here, only his legs --Jakubhal 17:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Himalayan_Monal_2025.jpg

File:Строгановский_дворец,_Флора_03.jpg

  • Nomination Flora Farnese statue in the yard of Stroganov Palace, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Here the focus appears to be slightly different: the neck is visible and the face lies in darkness. For me this is no quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lagueirões_-Valongo_2025.jpg

  • Nomination Neighborhood in Valongo --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Left side is leaning out. Otherwise borderline but probably acceptable. --Plozessor 03:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Corrected Perspective -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Parque_das_Serras_do_Porto_2025.jpg

  • Nomination Serras do Porto Park --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Blue (empty) upper left corner, also tilted. Noise/sharpness is borderline but probably still acceptable. --Plozessor 03:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Corrected Perspective -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Av_Oliveira_Zina_-_Valongo_2025.jpg

  • Nomination Main Church of Valongo --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Quite noisy, can you try to improve that? --Plozessor 03:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Reduced Noise -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor categorization. --A.Savin 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_253.jpg

  • Nomination Windmill at Water Mill, Long Island --Mike Peel 06:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I can't read the writing on the wall. --A S M Jobaer 06:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Do you look at the full size pictures when evaluate them? --Lvova 16:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Marking as discuss, if that's OK. Text is readable in the full resolution version? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_23.jpg

  • Nomination Previously unassessed Dagestan carpet on a felt base --Lvova 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Uneven brightness. Could probably be improved with a reverse radial gradient mask or similar. --Plozessor 03:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
    My processing skills are not enough for it... --Lvova 08:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose If you want, you can use my version and move it to discussions (I will not promote a picture where I was involved). --Plozessor 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Lvova 08:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Locorotondo_-_San_Giorgio_Martire_-_2.jpg

  • Nomination Locorotondo (Apulia, Italy) - Church of Saint George the Martyr - Statue of saint Peter on the façade --Benjism89 05:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose (oppose assumed per rules) Lacking sharpness. --Peulle 07:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, sharpness is good. --Sebring12Hrs 23:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is acceptable. Perspective is probably not optimal but still ok. --Plozessor 06:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --FalantoTaras 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Anna.Massini 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Apollo,_Chora,_Naxos,_Greece_julesvernex2-2.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo, Chora, Naxos, Greece (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Great placement of the subjects in the frame. --Benlisquare 10:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (oppose assumed per rules) Maybe i don't understand something important about this picture, but I see nothing but darkness in the bottom part of it. Is it good enough to be QI? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadowy part is quite dark but there is enough detail, is it definitely not pitch black. Very good composition IMO and catches the atmosphere of the scene. --Plozessor 06:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Oria_panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Oria panorama --FalantoTaras 08:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 14:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Please discuss. Right part is lacking sharpness. --Milseburg 15:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Also saw it, but decided that it's good enough. But if you're against it, probably the crop can help. --Lvova 21:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made a cut, thank you--FalantoTaras 08:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Okay for me now, but a pity about the now missing part--Milseburg (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft in the middle part and completely blurry in the bottom where the grass is. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:U_Rybníků,_Ludgeřovice_2025-05_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Ludgeřovice, Opava District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 14:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose because of dust spots in the sky (easy to fix). --Екатерина Борисова 02:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Inside_the_Garbhagriha_of_Sri_Chandrasekhara_Temple_(01).jpg

  • Nomination Inside the Garbhagriha of Sri Chandrasekhara Temple --I.Mahesh 06:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 18:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO.--Ermell 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for the situation. --Plozessor 04:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Anna.Massini 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20230105_St.-Johannis-Kirche_Würzburg_01.jpg

  • Nomination The gate of the church St.-Johannis in Würzburg --FlocciNivis 15:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 16:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is there a reason not to apply a PC? --Poco a poco 16:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, yes. But also, I'm not sure about the composition. There's a lot of room at the bottom while the structure is cut off at the top.--Peulle 08:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I performed PC and did a different crop --FlocciNivis 18:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Door itself is okay, but the upper area is blurred or unfocused. --A.Savin 05:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

File:U_Bílé_Vody,_Kobeřice_2025_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Kobeřice, Opava District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 08:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the image is blurry on both sides and also this piece of electricity pole on the left with CA's on it does not decorate the picture at all. --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A lot of dust spots and a and a mysterious white line in the middle as well as the above mentiont reasons make it not a QI.--Ermell 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the "mysterious white line" is a contrail, but there's the CA (clearly visible at the lamp post on the left side) and a few dust spots. --Plozessor 04:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Rizopolozhensky_Monastery_2024_01.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Oppose per Ekaterina. --A.Savin 05:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 07:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor, sorry. More background doesn't help here, IMO. BigDom 07:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dent_de_Jaman_-_Cairn.jpg

  • Nomination Cairn at the top of the Dent de Jaman. --Espandero 17:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment 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)
    Thanks. Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 22:33, 11 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)
  •  Comment Sebring12Hrs & Plozessor: I cleaned the noise in the sky and background. Let me know if it's okay now. --Espandero 18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good -- Spurzem 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 14:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 14:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 05:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20220702_Aphantopus_hyperantus_01.jpg

  • 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)

  • 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
  • Thu 12 Jun → Fri 20 Jun
  • Fri 13 Jun → Sat 21 Jun
  • Sat 14 Jun → Sun 22 Jun
  • Sun 15 Jun → Mon 23 Jun Category:Quality images#candidates