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 April 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 April 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 April 02 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:00, 2 April 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).


April 02, 2025

[edit]

April 01, 2025

[edit]

March 31, 2025

[edit]

March 30, 2025

[edit]

March 29, 2025

[edit]

March 28, 2025

[edit]

March 27, 2025

[edit]

March 26, 2025

[edit]

March 25, 2025

[edit]

March 24, 2025

[edit]

March 23, 2025

[edit]

March 22, 2025

[edit]

March 21, 2025

[edit]

March 20, 2025

[edit]

March 19, 2025

[edit]

March 18, 2025

[edit]

March 17, 2025

[edit]

March 14, 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:Pitchers_and_clay_utensils_from_Chanderi_(1).jpg

[edit]

File:Close_wing_Nectaring_activity_of_Cigaritis_vulcanus_(Fabricius,_1775)_-_Common_Silverline_WLB_DSC_9475a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Nectaring activity of Cigaritis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) - Common Silverline --Sandipoutsider 09:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I find this one ok. --Sebring12Hrs 09:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, sharpness / LoD is too low on the butterfly --Benjism89 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I understand your comment. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite low resolution but majority of the butterfly is razor sharp and thus it's still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 15:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_Basilique_Saint-Martin_-_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - St. Martin's basilica - Ciborium and cross, in the choir --Benjism89 06:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlihgts. Sorry. --Ermell 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, the half-blown column really is disturbing. Probably can be improved. --Plozessor 15:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_1er_-_Bourse_de_commerce_-_Portique_-_Fronton_(Aristide_Croisy).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pediment of a commodities exchange building --Romainbehar 05:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Something sppils the compo at right, could you remove it ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, removed pole from the right. --Romainbehar 18:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Brua_Village,_Himachal_Pradesh,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brua village in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. --UnpetitproleX 21:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the image isn't very sharp. Its a distant subject and atnospheric conditions likely created distortion. --Needsmoreritalin 23:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    It's a huge image and a wide view of nearly the entire village. I don't think the main subject, the village, is unsharp, though I've further sharpened the image a little, regardless. Thanks. --UnpetitproleX 16:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off, unnatural color of clouds and not sharp enough. --Milseburg 14:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Milseburg: fixed WB, sharpened further from the RAW. --UnpetitproleX 19:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Sharpness is ok (only the right edge is a bit blurry but that is acceptable), but it's tilted, thus  Oppose for now. --Plozessor 03:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: Fixed tilt. --UnpetitproleX 06:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_Basilique_Saint-Martin_-_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - St. Martin's basilica - Details on one side of the dome --Benjism89 06:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 14:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Windows are blown. Sorry. --Ermell 21:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment They are very bright, not blown : details of the windows are visible. This image was created from HDR. I could lower the brightness of the windows more than I already have, but I don't think that would be natural. --Benjism89 05:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. Very difficult in those churches. --Sebring12Hrs 06:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Blown windows in dark churches when it's sunny outside are hard to avoid, and IMO acceptable if it doesn't look strange. --Plozessor 03:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Drei_Frühstückssemmeln_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Three bread rolls: Potatoe roll, sesame-wheat roll and potatoe grain roll --Kritzolina 09:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Yummy --MB-one 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the lower one is sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 21:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, too low DoF, especially for a studio situation. --Plozessor 03:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Chair_and_women_lying_on_grass,_Alameda_Afonso_Henriques,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chair and women lying on grass, Alameda Afonso Henriques, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Title and description mention the chair and the woman, but te latter is out of focus. And honestly, I fail to understand the educational purpose of this picture. --Benjism89 19:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think that's an woefully limited view of what a good photograph can be. Not all the subjects in a picture need to be in focus. In this case, the chair is the main subject and the woman is the secondary one. The shallow depth of field is used to first guide our eyes towards the chair ("What is a chair doing in the middle of a park?") and then to the woman ("Why isn't she using the chair?"). I can find many reasons for such an image to be considered educational in Commons' broad definition of the word: "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" -- Julesvernex2 19:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear : of course, a limited depth of field can be interesting in certain cases, but I don't think it is here. And yes, Commons' definition of what is educational is broad, but I'm not sure this image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose", to quote the same page you mentioned. Of course, feel free to move this to CR. --Benjism89 11:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Will do, keen on hearing additional feedback from others -- Julesvernex2 13:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd say it needs a better explanation at least. What is this? Is this an art installation? Did someone just forget the chair there? Did you place it there? Is it part of the park? Is the woman part of an art performance or was the just accidentally lying there when you took the picture? (If the latter, did she consent to the picture?) How is someone supposed to 'use this picture for educational purposes' without knowing that?

File:Дом_быта_на_Разъезжей.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Soviet modernist building in Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 05:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Johann Jaritz: Didn't you see obvious geometry issues? Really? --Florstein 08:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've straightened the building to the point where it still looks natural.I do not like and do not practice straightening for the sake of straightening, when proportions are distorted just to achieve absolutely even verticals. In one of the ongoing discussions, the educational value of photographs in Сommons is mentioned. So, I don't think that photos of ugly distorted buildings that look absolutely unnatural, but absolutely straight, have any educational value. Sorry if my answer looks harsh. -- Екатерина Борисова 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I really don't agree with you. It seems the building is falling back and it's not natural at all. The walls of a building are verticals in reality. I don't ask for a pixel-precision but here we are very far from a good and realistic perspective. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 06:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: I'll simply put it there: COM:IG. --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Might accept the perspective if the front corner would be vertical, but not like this. --Plozessor 11:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I won't be offended if this photo is declined, the QI project is for me in many ways a place to study and get useful feedback. However, I've made an attempt to correct mentioned issues and uploaded the new version. Please have a look. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • And now it has CCW tilt. Plus to all. But. This is of little interest to me now. Considering all the trends, I guess, I have nothing else to do in this project. --Florstein 08:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Dietes_iridioides_(Fortnight_Lily)-notperfect.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dietes iridioides. Beauty is not always perfect - Orange County, California US. 33.7175° N, 117.8311° W (by Sabalo22) -- 04:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC
  • Discussion  Oppose It needs to be located. --Sebring12Hrs 04:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment What do you mean by it needs to be located? -- Sabalo22 -- 05:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment We need to have the location of the picture. At least the region or the city, the area, the country... --Sebring12Hrs 05:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment OK let me know if it needs more info. -- Sabalo22 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I copied the location from the caption, added some info from the caption to the description and I added some categories. However, I am not sure whether this flower is good for QI. It looks very bright, possibly overexposed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Agreed, it looks a bit overexposed. I uploaded a new version where I lowered the overall exposure and slightly raised the highlights. --Sabalo22 02:45, 01 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I canceled my vote, thank you. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:A_manhole_cover_19.09.24_in_Istanbul_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Istanbul, Turkey. By User:Lvova --Екатерина Борисова 00:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Too unsharp. --Sebring12Hrs 02:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
    I looked at it in full size before nominating and found this image sharp enough. --Екатерина Борисова 02:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The cigarette stub may be a little blurry, but the manhole cover looks good to me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's OK for me. --Bgag 14:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Main subject (manhole) looks sharp enough. -- Sabalo22 19:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:A_manhole_cover_19.09.24_in_Istanbul_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Istanbul, Turkey. By User:Lvova --Екатерина Борисова 00:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Too unsharp. --Sebring12Hrs 02:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
    It looks like blurry at first glance, but it seems to be an optical illusion. But I may be wrong, so please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks enough sharp for me. --Bgag 14:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Bgag. -- Johann Jaritz 02:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad inclined composition (a casual photo in passing?), mobile phone quality. Isn't QI. --Florstein 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Florstein.--Ermell 20:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 20:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_(2021)_55.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A lot of spots in the sky and the verticals should be fixed --Ermell 21:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Ermell, Plánovací kalendář: dust spot removed (I hope all of them) and perspective correction performed. Very interesting place. Please, check the result. --Harlock81 15:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_(2021)_42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Comment Dust spot on the right-hand side of the sky and perspettive correction needed. --Harlock81 12:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust spot removed, and Perspective Correction done. Please, may a third user check the image? --Harlock81 19:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not move anything to CR without a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Yeşil_Türbe_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yeşil Türbe in Bursa, Turkey --Bgag 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    perspective distortion, correction is needed. --F. Riedelio 08:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support IMO OK as low-angle shot. --XRay 05:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completly distorded, I don't understand how we can support this perspective, even with this angle. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted without any artistic reason. -Florstein 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Herderplatz_14_in_Weimar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wilhelm-Ernst-Gymnasium at Herderplatz 14 in Weimar, Thuringia, Germany. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The facade of the large building in the center appears unnaturally distorted. But that should be correctable. -- Spurzem 15:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 08:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure whether @Spurzem's comment should be taken as a vote or not. I agree that it's quite distorted and would skew it to something like this: https://ibb.co/kgJbTXMv. --Plozessor 03:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lol this is exactly the same picture ! I don't know how did you do, but both pictures are just one picture. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is too distorted, it looks like it's about to fall to the right. Meanwhile the version suggested by Plozessor looks much more natural. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is exactly the same picture. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Tournasol7: Hello ! There anything you can do about it ? The version suggested by Plozessor seems more realistic. --Sebring12Hrs 14:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. --Tournasol7 06:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not delighted with this new version, but at least it looks more natural than previuos one, so I removed my opposing vote. -- Екатерина Борисова 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks clearly above the QI-bar for me. Very good sharpness, colors and composition. --Milseburg 14:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Magical_City_Dhaka_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Magical City DhakaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media has been uploaded as a part of Project Korikath --A S M Jobaer 14:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Picture is good but needs better description and categorization. Existing categories are related to your activity, but not to the image. Again, note that commons is not about photos as a form of art, it's about photos for educational and documentary purposes. --Plozessor 05:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
    I've changed the categories --A S M Jobaer 13:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still acking proper description.
  •  Comment The unsigned vote above is from Plozessor, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=1013290481&oldid=1013290012. Please always sign your votes! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I've added a better description and categories. A precise location in Dhaka would be welcome, but I can live without it. Interesting and good quality picture. --Benjism89 18:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Benjism89. --Harlock81 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 07:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 25 Mar → Wed 02 Apr
  • Wed 26 Mar → Thu 03 Apr
  • Thu 27 Mar → Fri 04 Apr
  • Fri 28 Mar → Sat 05 Apr
  • Sat 29 Mar → Sun 06 Apr
  • Sun 30 Mar → Mon 07 Apr
  • Mon 31 Mar → Tue 08 Apr
  • Tue 01 Apr → Wed 09 Apr
  • Wed 02 Apr → Thu 10 Apr