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 August 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 August 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 August 12 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]] 08:01, 12 August 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).


August 12, 2025

[edit]

August 11, 2025

[edit]

August 10, 2025

[edit]

August 9, 2025

[edit]

August 8, 2025

[edit]

August 7, 2025

[edit]

August 6, 2025

[edit]

August 5, 2025

[edit]

August 4, 2025

[edit]

August 3, 2025

[edit]

August 2, 2025

[edit]

August 1, 2025

[edit]

July 31, 2025

[edit]

July 30, 2025

[edit]

July 28, 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:Bengal_tiger_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera tigris tigris in Sanjay Dubri Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 09:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Blurry Imo. The eyes aren't sharp enough. Not sharp enough, but beautiful --Lmbuga 11:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Agapanthus_--_2025_--_8383.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographic art based on an agapanthus flower, Hausdülmen, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too processed. Maybe FP, but not QI IMO. --Lmbuga 04:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
    We don't have many images in this style yet (Category:Quality images of zoom bursts), but that shouldn't be a reason for rejection. --XRay 06:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Commons:Image guidelines: "Unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters and effects. Editing programs have wonderful artistic filters and scripts. Unnecessary use of these, however, can be detrimental to the image". --Lmbuga 08:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Alte_Eiche_Goßmannsdorf_7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "Old Oak" natural monument near Goßmannsdorf --Plozessor 03:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The background of the picture, the lower part, the lower half, is blown out --Lmbuga 04:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
    Uploaded a new version. --Plozessor 04:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, in my opinion it can't be fixed.--Lmbuga 06:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral Not fixed, but it's a good picture--Lmbuga 14:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 16:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bieńczycki_Plac_Targowy,_view_from_S,_Nowa_Huta,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bieńczycki Plac Targowy, view from S, Nowa Huta, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Neutral neither quality, categorization nor motif are outstanding for a QI in my opinion --Nylki 12:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    The photo represents the object well, and there are no specific arguments against it. The quality is also not terrible. If there is anything that needs improvement, please let me know. --Igor123121 14:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Ok with the new categorization --Lmbuga 03:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
     Comment the new category is fitting. I am new to voting in quality images and have no prior experience yet how strict/lax the quality criteria are usually applied here, especially in regards to categorization and composition. since the technical image quality is good here and there is now also atleast one good category, I'll change my vote to neutral here. --Nylki 06:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:20230628_Botanischer_Garten_München_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An Agave in Big Cactus House of the Botanical Garden in Munich --FlocciNivis 14:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 18:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad categorized. I'm puzzled: Plant categorized under Category:Unidentified Agave, when the sign "in the picture" (see the picture) says Agave potatorum --Lmbuga 04:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bulwarowa_street,_view_to_S,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bulwarowa street, view to S, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
    the sky is a bit overexposed and composition wise I would not promote the image as is --Nylki 14:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The horizontal metal bar across the image could have been avoided. It's annoying (disturbing) and spoils the image. --Lmbuga 09:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Roma_-_San_Pietro_in_Vaticano_8431.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the tomb of Alexander VII by Gianlorenzo Bernini in the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Vatican City. --Phyrexian 23:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    This one is not sharp too. --Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose admins and others have informed Phyrexian that his choice of filenames for individual works of art is consistently poor. He clearly has no willingness to change that. I'm not going to keep coming here and repeating this for each of their QICs, but I do not think poorly named files should be rewarded with QI designations. - Jmabel 02:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    QI project already showed support of these names, just one-two admins ignored it on another page. --Lvova 10:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
     Neutral Inadequate reason for declining IMO. Better consensual review IMO --Lmbuga 11:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    I'm agree with Екатерина Борисова --Lmbuga 13:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even for me, the file name does not meet the requirements of COM:FN (cf. in particular "Precise"). To avoid future disputes, it might be helpful to use a more descriptive file name. An idea could be for @Phyrexian to include the original name in EXIF or export a list to a spreadsheet, with a reference to the original name and Common's one. COM:Pattypan, for instance, allows uploading photo batches via spreadsheets with all the associated metadata and with a new, more descriptive filename.Super nabla 11:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • what is said in COM:FN does require your opinion is a reason for dispute outside QIC. What I find absurd is that you're bringing problems to a quiet area that shouldn't be there. Vote according to the Commons:Image guidelines and let us live in peace. Your vote is attentive IMO --Lmbuga 12:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Personally, your vote and your friend's make me hateful. They make me hateful because this isn't the place.--Lmbuga 12:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Win where you should win and leave us alone--Lmbuga 12:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
@Lmbuga: I'm very surprised by your tone. This is a collaborative project (there's not a "you" and a "us" as we are all project members), and I have the right to voice my thoughts, just as you do. I reject the accusation that by citing COM:FN I'm creating problems. COM:FN is a guideline that applies to the entire project and is meant to help everyone. Discussions like this are part of the process, and we must remain professional.Super nabla 12:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I see you're so perfect that any place seems appropriate to express your ideology. This isn't the place. If you want, you can continue on my talk page, but—let me clarify—I'm nobody and you're not interested in me.--Lmbuga 13:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-03-22_Potsdam_STP_1562.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Potsdam: Kongresshotel Luftschiffhafen Potsdam am Templiner See; from the lake side --Stepro 12:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    It's slightly tilted and a PC would be no problem. I also would crop it to 16:9 --Syntaxys 12:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 14:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 15:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
     CommentI like the little lake in the foreground, for me it's part of the motif, so I don't want to crop to 16:9. And I think perspective correction is unnecessary and counterproductive, so it has a natural-looking perspective for me instead of an image where all the lines appear unnaturally straight. --Stepro 12:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I withdraw the promotion. I hadn't seen the previous edition. It's true, it needs perspective correction.--Lmbuga 13:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Stepro 15:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bitonto_-_Porta_Baresana_&_Torrione_Angioino_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bitonto (Apulia, Italy) - The Baresana gate and the Angevin tower, seen from the Cavour square --Benjism89 06:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not really sharp (esp. the left side), disturbing shadow --Poco a poco 08:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support The left is a bit unsharp, but IMO ok. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 10:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective correction: the tower is very very deformed. See File:Il castello NSC 6809.jpg--Lmbuga 09:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. And the image really lacks sharpness, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Tyler_Connolly_performing_with_Theory_of_a_Deadman,_Hogs_for_Hospice,_Leamington,_Ontario,_2025-08-01_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tyler Connolly performing with Theory of a Deadman, Hogs for Hospice, Leamington, Ontario, 2025-08-01 --Crisco 1492 00:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Motion blur. --Plozessor 03:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with motion blur, A bit noisy, but well above the bar in my opinion --Jakubhal 04:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support One finger is not very sharp, but the face of the singer is very good. -- Spurzem 14:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with motion blur. The presence of noise can be and result artistic as is the case in this image.--Lmbuga 09:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 11:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Mahamat_Assileck_Halata.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mahamat Assileck Halata during the inauguration ceremony of Marshal Mahamat Idriss Déby. By Mahmood-td --Aboubacarkhoraa 20:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Quality is good, but the image is downscaled. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I refuse, I decline, until I hear the photographer. If he says he hasn't downscaled it, I'll believe him.--Lmbuga 09:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 11:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Nahabat_Khana_of_Madan_Mohan_Temple,_Cooch_Behar_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nahabat Khana of Madan Mohan Temple, Cooch Behar. --Herpking 12:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • It needs perspective correction IMO --Lmbuga 17:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
    If you wish, I can correct the perspective.--Lmbuga 15:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
    Please go ahead. --Herpking 15:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I think it's better, but you're the one who has to approve the new version. I can reverse the change.--Lmbuga 12:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    Your corrected version is the most recent version of the file.--Herpking 05:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Because I participated in the picture--Lmbuga 10:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Herpking: Wav and goodbye--Lmbuga 09:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 11:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Palermo_Cathedral_BW_2025-04-29_11-18-10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Sicily, Palermo, Mosaic Madonna and Child above the entrance to the cathedral --Berthold Werner 16:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Writing is blurry. Fixable? --Tagooty 09:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Which writing? --Berthold Werner 13:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Above the centre. --Tagooty 05:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, you are right. --Berthold Werner 17:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Not so bad. --Sebring12Hrs 22:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As noted above, upper part is blurry while lower is in focus. --Tagooty 04:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nothing is completely sharp, the top half is a little worse--Lmbuga (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Schwalbenschwanz_(Papilio_machaon)_auf_Buddleja-20250711-RM-125550.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Swallowtail butterfly (Papilio machaon) on a Buddleja flower --Ermell 07:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 10:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Looks pixelated --Grunpfnul 11:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Grunpfnul. --Harlock81 07:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Lmbuga 05:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Barrage_des_Houches_depuis_Merlet.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Les Houches dam as seen from the car park at Merlet park, Les Houches, France. --Espandero 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {o} Not an expert commoner, but to me, many elements seem overprocessed, with strange artefacts and lacking detail. --Super nabla 08:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC) EDIT: The image has improved.Super nabla 15:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Super nabla: I've uploaded a new version. If you could put a note on things that look weird that'd be very helpful. --Espandero 13:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The new version is better, but still too heavily edited. That's not necessary at all with an image like this. It was taken in very good lighting conditions and is sharp, so why does it need so much editing? Unfortunately, I often see this in your images, which would otherwise be very good. --Syntaxys 14:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Syntaxys: I've tried new things recently while editing my pictures as I wanted to be more "complete". I'm gonna go back to what I used to do because I've been getting far more problems with my noms since. --Espandero 09:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed "with strange artifacts and lacking detail" as said above. As if there would have been significant sensor noise and that you have been fixed with AI denoising, though there should not be too much sensor noise at ISO 160 with an APS-C camera. --Plozessor 04:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: Sorry, but your review seems a rejection to me, yet you supported the promotion of the image. Is there a typo? --Harlock81 10:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, thx for noticing. --Plozessor 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lacking detail --Lmbuga 05:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 04 Aug → Tue 12 Aug
  • Tue 05 Aug → Wed 13 Aug
  • Wed 06 Aug → Thu 14 Aug
  • Thu 07 Aug → Fri 15 Aug
  • Fri 08 Aug → Sat 16 Aug
  • Sat 09 Aug → Sun 17 Aug
  • Sun 10 Aug → Mon 18 Aug
  • Mon 11 Aug → Tue 19 Aug
  • Tue 12 Aug → Wed 20 Aug