Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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 February 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 February 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 February 28 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]] 08:50, 28 February 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).


February 28, 2025

[edit]

February 27, 2025

[edit]

February 26, 2025

[edit]

February 25, 2025

[edit]

February 24, 2025

[edit]

February 23, 2025

[edit]

February 22, 2025

[edit]

February 21, 2025

[edit]

February 20, 2025

[edit]

February 19, 2025

[edit]

February 18, 2025

[edit]

February 17, 2025

[edit]

February 16, 2025

[edit]

February 15, 2025

[edit]

February 14, 2025

[edit]

February 13, 2025

[edit]

February 10, 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:Spring_in_the_swamp.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Abwesenheit_003_2016_06_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Low tide (absence of water)
    --F. Riedelio 18:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Weak CA at the left side. --Ermell 19:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose It seems it's tilted. There is a lot of noise too in the background. --Sebring12Hrs 21:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version, improved. --F. Riedelio 18:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I propose to modify the filename to a meaningful one. --XRay 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Images should have a meaningful file name, but for an international project the language should also be specified. A meaningful name in Chinese or Cyrillic, for example, is not helpful for me either. --F. Riedelio 08:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a) Overprocessed. b) I don't see a problem with the file name, nor with the image title, however the description of the image is, well, I don't know. It doesn't say what the photo shows. (sorry, now german) Es ist zwar lobenswert, dass alle Verwaltungsebenen aufgezählt sind, und wenn da ein philosphisches Konzept als Hintergrund dient, gerne, KANN man alles machen, aber primär ist das ein Bild vom Wattenmeer bei Ebbe vor Amrum mit einer Buhne und nem Priel und paar Dünen usw. im Hintergrund. --Smial 18:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. File name is ok (there is even a category and a contest about "absence" in Commons). Description is a bit scarce, but there are coordinates. Picture quality itself is also good (now). --Plozessor 04:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 11:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 11:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC))

File:La_Palma_-_Volcan_de_Teneguia_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volcán de Teneguía --Imehling 12:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very dark and has CA's on both sides --Екатерина Борисова 01:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version with CAs removed and brighter --Imehling 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because @Imehling: coordinates are wrong, they point to Libyan desert while that volcano is on La Palma. Please fix. Also  Question Is there a specific reason why the foreground is so extremely dark? The picture was taken 2 hours after sunrise. --Plozessor 15:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Oops, you are right. A minus sign was missing for the longitude. There is no special reason for the dark foreground. It consists of black basalt whereas the background is bright sky so there is a sharp contrast. --Imehling 16:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, I fixed the structured data accordingly. Personally I would probably brighten the foreground, but that is a matter of taste. I must admit that as dark as it is now it transports a special atmosphere. --Plozessor 04:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks --Imehling 10:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:PasajeUmbrella-Gualeguaychu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Umbrella Passage, Gualeguaychú, Argentina. Decorated with umbrellas to raise awareness about attention deficit disorder in children with autism and ADHD --Ezarate 19:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Overall good but cw tilt and some strong CA on the right side. --ArildV 07:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
    fixed, thanks!! --Ezarate 23:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective correction not done. --Sebring12Hrs 11:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose CA done. But still a perspective/tilt issue. Should be easy to fix --ArildV 09:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Sorry for delay response, done --Ezarate 16:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
     Support Ok now imo. Thank you --ArildV 07:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No good composition with too much street below. Furthermore a bit overexposed. -- Spurzem 13:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The building is leaning, this is very distracting at right, PC should be done. --Sebring12Hrs 14:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Fixed PC and overexposition --Ezarate 22:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
It's still leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 07:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Fixed --Ezarate 23:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Better, thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 09:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite much pavement on the picture, could probably cropped off since the mural to the left is not complete anyway. But that alone is for me not a reason to decline. --Plozessor 04:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Мыс_Тегетхофф_на_остров_Галля,_вид_с_береговой_линии.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hall Island, Franz Joseph Land (by Nixette) --FBilula 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 15:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great scenery but very underexposed, almost no highlights or whites at all. --BigDom 18:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great scenery. Exposure looks okay to me, and good quality overall. Coordinates should be added. --Milseburg 14:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Only few pixels are brighter than 80 %, IMO graduation curve should be adjusted. Otherwise it's very good. --Plozessor 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Per others, very underexposed, probably fixable. --Benjism89 14:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 19:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:EMS_2024,_Essen_(P1031576).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination dragster motorcycle at Essen Motor Show 2024 --MB-one 22:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition with the beheaded people standing around in the background. The image might not be bad as a cutout. But at the moment it's not QI, at least not for me. -- Spurzem 12:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd crop it more tight around the subject. The people are blurry enough so that they don't spoil the composition for me, but currently they're making a too big part of the image. --Plozessor 05:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Kallerna 20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The people in the background are very distracting. --XRay 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 12:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Maxus_eTerron_9_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6159_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Maxus eTerron 9 at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Btspurplegalaxy 03:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very busy, distracting background, so that the roof of the car is barely recognizable. For me, this is therefore not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that the roof is "barely recognizable", but that is because the roof is black and the background is black. However, that's not the photographer's fault in this case. Otherwise the picture is very good. --Plozessor 05:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks great for me for conditions it was shot in. --Горбунова М.С. 11:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral There are too often distracting elements in photographs from exhibitions. In addition, I often find vehicles photographed at exhibitions (or in parking lots) too tightly cropped. But I won't give it a contra, because at least the sharpness etc. is okay. --XRay 11:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per spurzem. --Smial 12:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Honey_in_Rodao_Flea_market,_Sao_Paulo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey in Rodao Flea market, Sao Paulo --Wilfredor 20:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not so sharp and rather noisy. Sorry. --Imehling 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    Remember that its a old image --Wilfredor 23:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment What difference does that make? --Kallerna 06:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
A camera from 20 years ago has a smaller sensor, produces lower image quality than current ones, therefore generates more noise, smaller size, among other aspects --Wilfredor 11:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
We have different criteria with imgs taken with different cameras? --Kallerna 19:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kallerna: Not so much the camera but the moment when the photo was taken. It would make no sense to say that a photo taken in the 60s has noise when we are talking about film grain. Wilfredor 20:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Where is this written? Also, 60s is a bit different than 2016. --Kallerna 05:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment This picture was taken with Nikon D300 which has a DX (APS-C) sensor, thus a bigger sensor than many of today's cameras. (But noise is no longer an issue here, NR was performed quite well.) --Plozessor 04:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF seems to be quite low and the honey pots that are closest to the camera are out of focus. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise is now gone, but per Robert, DoF is too small, and composition seems somehow random. Both probably acceptable for itself, but the combination is too much for my taste. --Plozessor 04:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm ok with DoF, but focus is just in the wrong place, the bottle that gets your attention first is completely blurry.
  •  Comment Invalid vote stricken; signature is required. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Cadillac_Lyriq_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6095.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cadillac Lyriq at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 17:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 21:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflection in the windshield really bothers me. The front of the car is also too dark. The picture isn't bad, but I wouldn't rate it as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think that's a problem for an outdoor photo; it's well shot.--Peulle 07:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose reflection, background. --Kallerna 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 12:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Audi_S6_Avant_e-tron_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6310.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi S6 Avant e-tron at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 16:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing reflections, too dark at the left. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Kallerna 06:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The whole place looks quite dark, so imo it's lighten up enough for conditions, agree lights can be seen as disturbing. --Горбунова М.С. 11:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Hallo Горбунова М.С., there are conditions that do not allow QI. I keep thinking about my black cat in the dark basement without light. Best regards -- Spurzem 16:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Altstadt,_Altdorf_bei_Nuernberg_(P1180267).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Half-timbered house at Denkmalensemble Altstadt (Altdorf bei Nürnberg) --MB-one 09:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful half-timbered house. However, the photo appears underexposed and is therefore not very appealing. -- Spurzem 09:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad weather, but well exposed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad weather or not, the subject is too dark for my taste. Can be fixed of course - I'd alter the graduation curve so that the shadows and midtones would become brighter, than increase shadows and reduce highlights, like here. --Plozessor 11:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Kallerna 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks absolutely okay and authentic to me. Sharpness is above average. --Milseburg 20:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me.--Ermell 20:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to see a raise of the shadows, light reduction of highlights and raise of the brightness, this looks much better then :) --PantheraLeo1359531 11:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 09:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Пещера_горы_Богдо_с_видом_на_озеро_Баскунчак.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Bolshoye Bogdo (by Попрошаев Сергей) --FBilula 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 11:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful view, but the foreground, which takes up half of the picture, is totally unsharp --Екатерина Борисова 00:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 13:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe that the use of the limited depth of field is intentional and, in this case, actually benefits the composition of the image. --Smial 14:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial, great picture IMO. --Plozessor 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The limited depth of field is an acceptable artistic choice IMO. But there are two issues that should be fixed : tilt (the horizon is not horizontal) and artefacts around most of the top rocks and part of the bottom ones (probably due to CA removal). --Benji 18:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! Юрий Д.К. 18:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted clockwise. The depth of field selection doesn't work for me here. Perhaps too sharpened. There are thin seams on the edges of the rocks. --Milseburg 20:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, especially because of insufficient DoF --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, I like the picture and the limited depth of field its artistic and sometimes intentional.--Tzim78 15:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 20 Feb → Fri 28 Feb
  • Fri 21 Feb → Sat 01 Mar
  • Sat 22 Feb → Sun 02 Mar
  • Sun 23 Feb → Mon 03 Mar
  • Mon 24 Feb → Tue 04 Mar
  • Tue 25 Feb → Wed 05 Mar
  • Wed 26 Feb → Thu 06 Mar
  • Thu 27 Feb → Fri 07 Mar
  • Fri 28 Feb → Sat 08 Mar