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 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)

[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 June 19 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 02:20, 19 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 19, 2025

[edit]

June 18, 2025

[edit]

June 17, 2025

[edit]

June 16, 2025

[edit]

June 15, 2025

[edit]

June 14, 2025

[edit]

June 13, 2025

[edit]

June 12, 2025

[edit]

June 11, 2025

[edit]

June 10, 2025

[edit]

June 9, 2025

[edit]

June 8, 2025

[edit]

June 7, 2025

[edit]

June 5, 2025

[edit]

June 4, 2025

[edit]

June 3, 2025

[edit]

May 29, 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:Nad_Vodárnou,_Ludgeřovice_2025-05_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ludgeřovice, Opava District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 07:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 08:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a lot of dust spots on the sky that should be fixed first --Jakubhal 18:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 07:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I think the quality of the photo is more than adequate, but the image description could definitely be a bit more detailed. --Smial 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 15:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_29.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I think the quality of the photo is more than adequate, but the image description could definitely be a bit more detailed. --Smial 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Motortreff_Bella_Italia_2024,_Munich_(P1190251).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lamborghini Gallardo --MB-one 18:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support In my opinion, there is too much empty space at the bottom. Still the photo is good enough for QI --Jakubhal 18:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow in the area of ​​the rear wheel is extremely distracting. Also, the background doesn't match the car at all. Please don't take offense: This isn't QI. -- Spurzem 11:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Bobolink. Suffield Wildlife Management Area. Suffield, CT USA --Pdanese 12:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benlisquare 12:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus point seems ok, but I can't accept the blurring noise reduction combined with oversharpening. --Smial 11:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20250605_field_sparrow_suffield_wma_PD204762.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Field Sparrow. Suffield Wildlife Management Area. Suffield, CT USA --Pdanese 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For me a bit over-sharpened, but no issue with depth of fields - eyes have the same level of sharpness than the rest of bird --Jakubhal 08:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Removed one oft two "pro" votes ;-) --Smial 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Oh, sorry, and thanks for correcting that Jakubhal 14:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Jakubhal. --Smial 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-necked_puffbird_(Notharchus_hyperrhynchus_hyperrhynchus)_Rio_Napo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-necked puffbird (Notharchus hyperrhynchus) --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DXR 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support May be a bit overprocessed ? But sharpness is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The focus looks ok, but the image noise and sharpening are both exaggerated. It's NOT at all bad if a little noise remains and surfaces of any kind don't look like plastic wrap or LEGO bricks. --Smial 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-winged_swallow_(Tachycineta_albiventer)_Rio_Napo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-winged swallow (Tachycineta albiventer) --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 08:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A tiny bit oversharpened, but excellent composition and nice lighting. --Smial 12:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wire-crested_thorntail_(Discosura_popelairii)_female_Wayra.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wire-crested thorntail (Discosura popelairii) female --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wire-crested_thorntail_(Discosura_popelairii)_male_Sumaco.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wire-crested thorntail (Discosura popelairii) male --Charlesjsharp 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good framing and detail. --Benlisquare 07:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fact that the bird is cut is not appealing. --Sebring12Hrs 20:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 20:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 11:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Green Bee-eater in West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Кронштадт._Андреевская_5_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mascarons on building in Kronstadt, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Would benefit from PC. --Crisco 1492 03:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's a view from the ground to the top part of 3-storey building (see other pictures in the category). I straightened the photo enough to make it look good, didn't I? --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    You straightened it, but the tools available for straightening can still make it even straighter. I usually use the guided rulers in Lightroom for that. --Crisco 1492 10:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    My question wasn't about tools, but about what's the point of straightening this photo even more. --Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Because it's not an accurate reflection of the subject. I'm moving this to "discussion", as I am opposed to promotion as it stands. --Crisco 1492 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:AC_SO_Figuren_Karl_V._und_Sigismund.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statues at the north facade of the City Hall of Aachen --Grunpfnul 14:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Overexposed --Екатерина Борисова 00:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Check your Monitor Settings please --Grunpfnul 06:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    My monitor settings are OK and I still can't see details of faces of these statues while the middle part of image look almost normal. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Well, but it's not OK to me, so I'd like to hear some other opinions, not only yours. --Екатерина Борисова 02:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. Slightly overexposed. The Karl would still be acceptable, but details in Sigismund's face have actually disappeared. ..Smial 13:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Joseph_Catholic_Church,_River_Canard,_Ontario,_Canada,_2025-06-03_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Joseph Catholic Church, River Canard, Ontario, Canada, 2025-06-03 --Crisco 1492 01:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 02:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jesus statue on the top is very unsharp --Екатерина Борисова 02:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 17:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Addressed; statue has been sharpened. --Crisco 1492 03:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's still blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    Please do not cancel the support vote --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose But I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 17:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is the usual effect of subsequent perspective correction using software. The interpolation of the pixels simply amplifies existing, even minor blurring. The higher up in the picture, you can also see this in the contours of the façade. However, the image is good enough for an A4-size printout. --Smial 12:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Talsperre_Wippra_(Juni_2025)_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Talsperre Wippra - Lake. --Romzig 19:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad image quality --Remontees 22:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline indeed (ok to me), but I want to know what others think.. --Sebring12Hrs 16:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A_cluster_of_large,_green,_unripe_jackfruits_hangs_from_the_sturdy_trunk_of_a_tree,_surrounded_by_green_leaves._01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A cluster of large, green, unripe jackfruits hangs from the sturdy trunk of a tree, surrounded by green leaves.I, 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 16:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CAs and green fringes. --Sebring12Hrs 19:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Indian_paradise_flycatcher_near_Dharampur,_Himachal_Pradesh_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian paradise flycatcher near Dharampur, Himachal Pradesh. --Satdeep Gill 07:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 05:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in the focus, I'm interesting to hear other's opinions. --Lvova 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small image, noisy, and the focus is not really good. it's an accumulation of these problems that cause me to decline. --Sebring12Hrs 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the image noise is still acceptable, but the lighting situation is quite unfavorable (background slightly overexposed) and the image size is only slightly above the hard limit. Given the small size, I would expect better sharpness. --Smial 12:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 05:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kanalizatsion_quduq_qopqogʻi._Toshkent,_Chilonzor_k._06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover at Chilonzor street. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. --Jamshid Nurkulov 23:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose No FOP in Uzbekistan; design is well beyond the threshold of originality. --Crisco 1492 00:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Dear Crisco, First read this law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. It says: results obtained by technical means intended for production of a certain kind of work without the performance of creative activities by a person directly aimed at the creation of an individual work. This is not a one-off work. Such hats were produced in Uzbekistan in large quantities. --Jamshid Nurkulov 00:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • If you really want to argue that this does not cross the threshold of originality in Uzbekistan, fine. Mass production, however, does not mean something is purely technical. Barbie dolls and GI Joes are mass produced, but they are still protected by copyright. Using a "discuss" tag because you clearly dispute my analysis of the copyright status of this work, but I am definitely not going to budge in this forum; there is a deletion discussion in place for that. --Crisco 1492 01:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Gent_-_Gildenhuis_der_Onvrije_Schippers_-_Pediment_and_boat_sculpture.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Boat sculpture on pediment --Romainbehar 06:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose To me the part of the streetlight at the lower left border is disturbind and I would crop it out of the picture --FlocciNivis 08:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for noticing. --Romainbehar 06:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support the new version is fine for me Anna.Massini 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --FlocciNivis (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Acker-Distel_südwestlich_von_Zell_am_Ebersberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cirsium arvense southwest of Zell am Ebersberg --Plozessor 03:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose High quality but to dark imo. --ArildV 05:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment 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)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal ! --Sebring12Hrs 18:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 12:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now for misidentification. This is a Cirsium species, but certainly not Cirsium arvense, which would have smaller flower heads and not these very thorny stems. This might well be Cirsium vulgare. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thanks! Do you think it could be Cirsium acaulon? That was found in the surrounding meadows. Cirsium vulgare and Cirsium arvense were not. --Plozessor 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Cirsium acaule has no stems or almost no stems. This is not a match. However, there may be hybrids with other Cirsium species. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • 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. -- ~~~~
  •  Comment Something must have gone wrong with the signature coding in the above entry, but looking from other discussions available, the entry is done by Spurzem, I believe.--Peulle 07:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention, in my opinion the car is not distorted, the brightness of the right side is noticeable due to the dustiness of the front hood. Jamshid Nurkulov 11:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem Jakubhal 12:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrari_Purosangue_MYLE_Festival_2025_DSC_9651.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Weak support I would agree that it's not an ideal background setting, but capturing anything in these conditions is difficult considering there are people milling around everywhere. The person on the right is cropped but you can still see the face. The car itself seems OK in terms of lighting and focus, so I'll say it's an okay capture of a real-life scene.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an easy photo in a chaotic place. The car is visible well. Anna.Massini 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Anna.Massini: Indeed! We can see a car in the picture. But if that's enough for an award, then we've come far enough. Best regards, and please, no offense -- Spurzem 11:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --XRay 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Smial 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dogo_Argentino_in_a_field.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dogo Argentino in a field --Surfinsi 17:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  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)
  •  OpposeI agree, the eyes are out of focus. Lvova 09:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above Jakubhal 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 05:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jerry von der Hohen Mark,Interboot 2023, Friedrichshafen (P1130265).jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Oppose I'm 50/50 on the composition, because you can tell that the dog is the main subject. However, the file name and description are not in accordance with the guidelines, so that lands me on the opposition side of the fence.--Peulle 09:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Fixed the file name and description. Thank you for the review.--MB-one 14:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random composition, no splashing, sparkling water, not an animal portrait. Sorry, I don't get it. --Smial 12:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Himalayan_Monal_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Himalayan Monal. By User:Gurung pratap --Nirmal Dulal 08:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 08:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 08:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Ermell. Lvova 09:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Anna.Massini 13:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 09:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Строгановский_дворец,_Флора_03.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Too little detail and too much grain on the face. Looks like a mobile phone shot.--Peulle 08:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's definitely not a mobile phone shot. Also have in mind that this statue is 200 years old, it stands in open air in quite different weather conditions and has never been restored, so it's covered with dust and dirt. Maybe to an outsider it looks like 'grain". -- Екатерина Борисова 04:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • If you look at the background (although out of focus), you can see what I mean by "grain". There's a lot of processing issues.--Peulle 07:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • You said earlier that grain is on the face, but now you're saying that grain is on the background, so I no longer understand what exactly the complaints are. And should the background necessarily be in focus? -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not too bad, the "grain" doesn't spoil to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I just looked on my computer in full screen and it is indeed very disturbing and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 19:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. The lady seems to have had some unfortunate cosmetic surgery on her face during her life, so you shouldn't look so closely at the pixel level. I think the photo is good enough for an A4-size print, especially because of the difficult lighting situation. --Smial 12:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lagueirões_-Valongo_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  • ✓ Done Added two more categories. -- Petnog 19:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Parque_das_Serras_do_Porto_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  SupportI added the category Natural parks in Portugal Anna.Massini 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is borderline and in addition, no category for location.... --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added category -- Petnog 11:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Av_Oliveira_Zina_-_Valongo_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Main Church of Valongo --Petnog 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • 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)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 06:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 08:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_253.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Windmill at Water Mill, Long Island --Mike Peel 06:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose 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)
  •  Oppose The texts are perfectly readable, but the perspective is not appealing, nothing is centered and the top window is cut. wood shingles are blurred at the edges, especially at the top left. Sebring12Hrs 22:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed Dagestan carpet on a felt base --Lvova 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment 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)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Oria_panorama.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oria panorama --FalantoTaras 08:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
 Comment Middle part is sharp. The grass is not the subject here an so the choosen DoF is okay. --Milseburg 10:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't recognise any destructive noise reduction or excessive sharpening, and as long as I can count the stones in the wall at this distance, the image is sharp enough. In such a relatively diffuse lighting situation, you can't expect such high, crisp contrasts as in direct sunlight. --Smial 12:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 13:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. And I think the left side is leaning in.--Peulle 07:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. --Harlock81 16:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plánovací kalendář 11:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Rizopolozhensky_Monastery_2024_01.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Support Overall good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly overcontrasted but still ok, grainy (probably acceptable), but - biggest issue for me - purple CA in the trees, especially on the left side. With CA fixed I'd clearly support it. --Plozessor 04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • 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)
  • Decline
  •  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)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --Harlock81 16:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 20:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Weak oppose Distortion is to be expected where a stele is shot from the ground, especially when it's 230 feet tall. That being said, the distortion is quite extreme in this instance. Crisco 1492 03:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 05:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • 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
  • Mon 16 Jun → Tue 24 Jun
  • Tue 17 Jun → Wed 25 Jun
  • Wed 18 Jun → Thu 26 Jun
  • Thu 19 Jun → Fri 27 Jun