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 July 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 July 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 July 31 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]] 09:07, 31 July 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).


July 31, 2025

[edit]

July 30, 2025

[edit]

re

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 22, 2025

[edit]

July 21, 2025

[edit]

July 20, 2025

[edit]

July 19, 2025

[edit]

July 18, 2025

[edit]

July 17, 2025

[edit]

July 16, 2025

[edit]

July 15, 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:Эрмитаж,_памятная_доска,_26_зал.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial plaque to those killed in the assassination attempt on Alexander II, Hermitage --Lvova 07:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 10:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose It's almost a rectangle, but it isn't. It needs perspective correction. --Lmbuga 18:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now Lmbuga (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Плитка_у_входа_в_особняк_Зубова.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mansion of Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky (Platon Aleksandrovich Zubov), floor tiles --Lvova 07:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 10:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The vertical line on the left is leaning. The image is offset: The tile on the right is much less visible than the one on the left. --Lmbuga 18:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    • You see a tile that has been warped by time, where the horizontal alignment doesn't match the vertical alignment, and you want to cut it even more... Well, ok. Lvova 08:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. In all of these phone photos, I have difficulty distinguishing what are actually structures in the surfaces and what are denoising and sharpening artifacts. The image corners are also quite blurred and the lighting with different color temperatures is unfavorable. --Smial 11:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Words before 'I have difficulty' can be said about every camera. Lvova 12:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I understand the comment of Smial which an interesting point of viwe, but the QI bar is reached IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 20:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Better. I'm thinking Lmbuga (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The lighting is uneven. I should have also tried to get the top tiles completely into the picture and placed the horizontal border further down. -- Spurzem 07:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Roma_-_San_Luigi_dei_Francesi_8250.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Luigi dei Francesi church in Rome, Italy. --Phyrexian 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Fails Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, unsuitable generic filename. ~~~~ --Grand-Duc 21:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The name is good enough. Lvova 08:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC) upd. Just to mention at least once: the bad name would be 'Roma - 8250'.
  •  Oppose Good picture, but not sharp enough IMO. The summary is good, and acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it.--Lmbuga 21:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is the sixth picture by the same author in which I've written the same thing, due to a comment from a user I don't know. It looks like a chase.--Lmbuga 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The subject is a relief in a church: en:San Luigi dei Francesi. The naming is still too broad, as the image is clearly not one of a church, but one of a small detail of the whole building. And moving, which I could have done, is not an option, the nominator will presumably see it to be undone as he did before. So opposing this nomination is the single remaining way to react towards the assumed guideline violation. Regards, Grand-Duc 21:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Unjustified and cruel reasoning--Lmbuga 21:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the name. It helps us to reconize user's pictures. Borderline sharpness, but not bad at 2 560 × 1 707 pixels on Commons. --Sebring12Hrs 22:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps I am exceeding my authority, but I propose that an administrator call this user (Grand-Duc) to order.--Lmbuga 22:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't feel like participating in this vote. Excuse me. I'm sorry. It makes me want to cry. It's not what I expect from the spirit of Wikipedia.--Lmbuga 22:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good, file name and categorization is ok. I would extend the description a bit (something like 'Relief of a dragon at the face of San Luigi dei Francesi church in Rome, Italy'), but that alone is IMO not a reason to decline. --Plozessor 03:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Gesù_delle_Monache_3288.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Gesù delle Monache church in Naples, Italy. --Phyrexian 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The upper part seems a bit too dark IMO and what's the black shape on the bottom? --MB-one 08:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @MB-one: , the black shape on the bottom is the silhouette of the entranceway second door (bussola in Italian). Yes, all the church was very dark, but in this particular picture I considered the dark areas are periferic and the main subject, the counterfacade fresco decoration, is fairly clear. --Phyrexian 10:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the explanation. I can accept the silhouette, but IMO, the upper portion of this image ios too dark currently. Can you fix it? --MB-one 14:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @MB-one: Due to other comments I'll leave it like this, I knew this image would be borderline, also because of sharpness, I just gave it a try. :-) --Phyrexian 12:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  • This file along other ones have meaningful name and describes the subject well. The numbers it contains (probably for the photographer's convenience) do not interfere with the perception of the file name and are not prohibited by the rules. --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • No, does not fail the rules. "Napoli 3288.jpg" or "Italy trip 2025 13288.jpg" or "P10003288.jpg" would be "too generic". More details can be in the description. (That could be improved here though.) --Plozessor 03:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Plozessor: Sure the description can and should be improved, but anybody could do it, unfortunately I have no informations about the fresco decoration. --Phyrexian 12:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good picture, but the detail is not good IMO. I'm not entirely sure. The summary is good, and acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it.--Lmbuga 21:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
This is the fifth image by the same author in which I've written the same thing, due to a comment from a user I don't know. It looks like a chase.--Lmbuga 21:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Lmbuga: Thank you for your review. I reported Grand-Duc for hounding to the administrators' noticeboard, I hope this will make him stop chasing me. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is acceptable for the situation, file name is ok (see my comment above). Description could have a bit more details though. --Plozessor 03:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extremely poor lighting. A small part of the subject is bright, but nearly everything that should be visible is in darkness. The fact that the conditions were difficult is not a criterion for awarding a quality image. -- Spurzem 07:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some details appear extremely sharp, while others right next to them look blurred. Large parts of the picture are really too dark. The vignetting in the lower corners of the picture is disturbing. --Smial 11:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Smial: This is an effect of the strong light pointed to the center of the wall in almost complete dark environment. For me could be QI but I understand that others does not agree, I just gave it a try, thank you for your review. --Phyrexian 12:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good file name, sharpness is borderline but the light condition is very difficult. --Sebring12Hrs 20:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3879.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: reading of inscription attached to three statue bases. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, unsuitable generic filename --Grand-Duc 21:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The name is good enough. Lvova 08:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture IMO. I'm not entirely sure. The summary is good, and acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it--Lmbuga 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is the fourth picture by the same author in which I've written the same thing, due to a comment from a user I don't know. It looks like a chase--Lmbuga 21:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, description and file name. --Plozessor 03:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3885.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: six men in front of a colonnade and statues. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, unsuitable generic filename --Grand-Duc 21:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The name is good enough. Lvova 08:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture IMO. I'm not entirely sure. The summary is good, and acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it--Lmbuga 21:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, description and file name. --Plozessor 03:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Napoli_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_3884.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco from the House of Julia Felix in Pompeii: sale of work tools and shoes. Work in the Naples National Archaeological Museum, in Italy. --Phyrexian 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 09:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, unsuitable generic filename --Grand-Duc 21:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The name is good enough. Lvova 08:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture IMO. I'm not entirely sure, but the summary is good, and acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it--Lmbuga 20:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, description and file name. --Plozessor 03:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8772.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Jean-Baptiste by Alfred Lenoir in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 18:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 18:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, unsuitable generic filename --Grand-Duc 21:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The name is good enough. Lvova 08:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture IMO. The Summary is perfect: The data cannot be improved. Acceptable name. If someone doesn't like the name, they (or he) should find a way to rename it, not a way to discredit it.--Lmbuga 20:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, description and file name. --Plozessor 03:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Вологда_-_Ц._Иоанна_Златоуста_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of John Chrysostom, Vologda, Russia. By User:Aniacra --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seen at 100%? Too many JPG artifacts. --Syntaxys 04:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 08:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many NR artifacts. Picture was taken with ISO 100, if the author has the raw file he could probably fix it with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 04:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Работа_мастерицы_Ярославской_области_Шакуриной_Анастасии_111.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bed linen with crocheted details --Lvova 07:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I don't really like the photo. I find it a bit boring, to be honest. --S. Perquin 17:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Probably, but creativity isn't a goal here. --Lvova 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't know that! Sorry, then I withdraw my vote! --S. Perquin 22:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What about the right crop ? The pillow/cushion is cut. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
    It is in purpose, not to make a big dark area; but ok, oppose here is fair enough. Lvova 17:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. The cushion is cut out. I can't see the subject of the photo clearly.--Lmbuga 20:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 18:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Cirsium_arvense_2025-07-23-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowering field thistle --ReneeWrites 13:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 13:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a great photo from an aesthetic point of view, but there's not much that's sharp and in focus. So please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image and sharp enough -- Spurzem 06:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Smial 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just don't understand. All leaves are unsharp here. It looks really beautiful as a thumbnail and I'm sure it'll be look great as a print on someone's room wall, but nethertheless it's not sharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Actual flower and large parts of the trunk are sharp and in focus. DoF is not perfect, yes, but as a whole it's over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:08, 30 July 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)
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)
  • Discussion
  • 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosensteintunnel_(2021)_1X7A0042.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosensteintunnel Stuttgart --Alexander-93 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • 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)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:36, 28 July 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Тверская_4_СПб_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tverskaya 4, the decoration --Lvova 10:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I don't like the cut at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 23:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    What's about now? --Lvova 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's fine, as the shot captures the entire decoration under the portal. Therefore, I'm asking for other opinions. Anna.Massini 08:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Oppose Sorry but horizontals don't seem to be horizontal here. When you look at the windows, you can see that is bent. And the sharpness is not at his best at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The quality of the subject of the photo is good, but the image, IMO, is clearly tilted. Sorry. It can be solved, if you want, I'll try it.--Lmbuga 20:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    If you have ideas what can be done, I will be really happy to see. I just haven't. Lvova 07:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 23 Jul → Thu 31 Jul
  • Thu 24 Jul → Fri 01 Aug
  • Fri 25 Jul → Sat 02 Aug
  • Sat 26 Jul → Sun 03 Aug
  • Sun 27 Jul → Mon 04 Aug
  • Mon 28 Jul → Tue 05 Aug
  • Tue 29 Jul → Wed 06 Aug
  • Wed 30 Jul → Thu 07 Aug
  • Thu 31 Jul → Fri 08 Aug