Jump to content

Commons:Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Shortcut
Zu den Nominierungen springen

Dies sind die Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder. Beachte bitte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um die exzellenten Bilder handelt. Falls du nur Kommentare zu eigenen Bildern erhalten möchtest, ist die Seite Fotokritik (z. Zt. nur englisch) der richtige Ort.

Hintergrund

Der Zweck der Qualitätsbilder ist, die einzelnen Benutzer anzuregen, einzigartige Bilder zur Verfügung zu stellen, um diese Ansammlung zu erweitern. Während exzellente Bilder die absolut besten Bilder darstellen, sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu anregen, selbst solche qualitativ hochwertigen Bilder zu erstellen. Außerdem sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu dienen, anderen Benutzern die Methoden der Verbesserung eines Bildes zu erklären.


Richtlinien

Alle vorgeschlagenen Bilder sollten von Commons-Benutzern erstellt worden sein.

Für Vorschlagende von Qualitätsbildern

Unten werden die wichtigsten Richtlinien für Qualitätsbilder genannt, ausführliche Informationen findet man unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Anforderungen an die Bilder

  1. Urheberrechtsstatus. Qualitätsbilder müssen unter einer verwendbaren Lizenz hochgeladen werden. Alle Lizenzanforderungen sind unter Commons:Copyright tags zu finden.
  2. Bilder sollten den Commons-Richtlinien entsprechen, einschließlich COM:Photographien erkennbarer Personen.
  3. Qualitätsbilder müssen sinnvoll benannt, brauchbar kategorisiert und genau beschrieben sein. Mehrsprachige Beschreibungen sind besser, eine englische Beschreibung wird dabei gerne gesehen, ist aber nicht vorgeschrieben.
  4. In den Bildern soll keine Werbung oder Signatur enthalten sein. Die Copyright- und Autor-Hinweise sollen auf der Seite mit angegeben sein. Sie können auch in den Metadaten enthalten sein, sollen aber den Bildinhalt nicht behindern.


Urheber
Vorgeschlagene Formulierungsänderungen, um KI-generierte Medien ausdrücklich von QI auszuschließen siehe Diskussion

Bilder müssen von einem Wikimedianer erstellt worden sein, um als Qualitätsbilder ausgezeichnet werden zu können. Das bedeutet, dass Bilder von z. B. Flickr nicht geeignet sind, es sei denn, der Fotograf ist ein Commons-Benutzer. (Die Auszeichnung als exzellentes Bild hat diese Einschränkung nicht.) Von Wikimedianern erstellte photographische Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke sind zulässig (und sollten der Richtlinie entsprechend als PD-old markiert sein). Wenn ein Bild ausgezeichnet wird, obwohl es nicht von einem Wikimedianer erstellt wurde, sollte die Auszeichnung wieder entfernt werden, sowie der Fehler bemerkt wird.


Technische Anforderungen

Ausführliche technische Anforderungen stehen unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Auflösung

Die Grafiken bei Commons werden nicht nur auf dem Bildschirm betrachtet, sie sollen auch für den Ausdruck oder für die Betrachtung auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen geeignet sein. Da auch niemand vorhersehen kann, welche Geräte in der Zukunft verwendet werden, sollten Bilder eine brauchbare Auflösung bieten und nicht unnötig verkleinert werden. Als Untergrenze gelten zwei Megapixel, wobei an Aufnahmen, die relativ einfach zu erstellen sind, von den Bewertern auch höhere Ansprüche gestellt werden können. Diese Regel schließt Vektorgrafiken (SVG) oder computergenerierte Bilder aus, die mit frei lizenzierter oder offener Software erstellt wurden, wie in der Bildbeschreibung angegeben.

Bildqualität

Digitale Bilder sind verschiedenen Problemen beim Aufnehmen und beim Speichern ausgesetzt, wie z. B. Bildrauschen, Artefakte bei der JPEG-Kompression, abgesoffene Schatten- oder Spitzlichter-Bereiche oder falscher Weißabgleich. All diese Kriterien sollten berücksichtigt werden.

Bildaufbau und Beleuchtung

Die Anordnung des Hauptgegenstandes sollte zum Inhalt des Bildes beitragen. Der Vordergrund und Hintergrund des Bildes sollte nicht ablenken. Beleuchtung und Fokus tragen auch zum gesamten Resultat bei; der Hauptgegenstand sollte scharf sein.

Wert

Unser Hauptziel ist es, Qualitätsbilder zu sammeln, die wertvoll für alle Wikimedia-Projekte sind.

Wie man ein Qualitätsbild vorschlägt

Einfach eine Zeile unter Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list im Abschnitt Nominations einfügen:

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |2=}}

Die Beschreibung sollte sehr kurz gefasst sein und aus wenigen Worten bestehen. Bitte lasse zudem zwischen deinem neuen Eintrag und einem noch existierenden alten Eintrag eine Zeile frei.

Wenn du das Bild eines anderen Wikimedianers nominierst, dann füge dessen Benutzernamen in die Beschreibung ein, Beispiel:

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung (by [[User:BENUTZERNAME|BENUTZERNAME)]] --~~~~ |}}

Hinweis: Es existiert ein Helferlein, QInominator, mit dem man Bilder einfacher vorschlagen kann. Es fügt einen kleinen „Nominate this image for QI“-Link oben auf jeder Dateibeschreibungsseite hinzu. Klickt man auf den Link, wird das Bild zu einer Liste möglicher Kandidaten hinzugefügt. Sowie diese Liste vollständig ist, bearbeite Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. Oben im Bearbeitungsfenster wird ein grüner Balken angezeigt. Klickst du auf den Balken, werden alle möglichen Kandidaten in das Bearbeitungsfenster eingefügt.

Anzahl der Vorschläge

Jeder Teilnehmer darf täglich bis zu fünf Bilder nominieren.

Hinweis: Wenn möglich, bewerte bitte für jedes Bild, das du vorschlägst, mindestens einen der anderen Kandidaten.

Bilder bewerten

Jeder angemeldete Benutzer bis auf den Vorschlagenden darf Bilder bewerten. Voraussetzung ist außerdem, dass sein Benutzerkonto mindestens 10 Tage existiert und der Benutzer mindestens 50 Bearbeitungen nachweisen kann. Zur einfacheren Beurteilung kannst du das Helferlein QICvote aktivieren.

Beim Bewerten von Bildern sollten Rezensenten dieselben Richtlinien beachten wie der Vorschlagende.

Wie man bewertet

Wie man den Status aktualisiert

Betrachte aufmerksam das Bild, öffne es in voller Auflösung und überprüfe, ob die Qualitätsstandards eingehalten worden sind.

  • Wenn du Dich entscheidest, das Bild zu unterstützen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |}}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Promotion|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragstellers|Warum Du dafür bist. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Promotion und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit einem kurzen Kommentar.

  • Wenn Du Dich entscheidest, das Bild abzulehnen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ | }}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Decline|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragsstellers |Warum es Dir nicht gefällt. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Decline und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit Angaben zu den Gründen der Ablehnung (Überschriften von entsprechenden Abschnitten in den Richtlinien reichen). Wenn zahlreiche Probleme erkennbar sind, nenne am besten nur die zwei bis drei dringlichsten oder füge einfach die Phrase multiple problems ein. Bei einer Ablehnung hinterlasse bitte den ausführlichen Kommentar auf der Diskussionsseite des Benutzers. Denke daran, höflich zu bleiben. In dieser Nachricht solltest Du eine ausführlichere Begründung für Deine Ablehnung geben.

Hinweis: Bitte zuerst die ältesten Bilder bewerten.

Schonfrist und Ernennung

Wenn es innerhalb von 48 Stunden nach der Bewertung keinen Widerspruch gibt, ist die Datei entweder prämiert oder gescheitert. Wenn Du Einwände hast, kannst du das Bild in den Abschnitt einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) verschieben, indem du den Status des Bildes in Discuss änderst.

Weitere Vorgehensweise

QICbot macht dies automatisch zwei Tage, nachdem eine Entscheidung getroffen worden ist. Ausgezeichnete Bilder werden unter Commons:Quality_Images/Recently_promoted zwischengespeichert, um kategorisiert zu werden, bevor sie automatisch auf die entsprechenden Qualitätsbilder-Seiten eingefügt werden.

Wenn du glaubst, ein Ausnahmebild gefunden zu haben, das den Status „Exzellentes Bild“ verdient, dann nominiere es auch auf Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder.

Vorgehensweise per Hand (nur in Notfällen öffnen)

Wenn ein Bild ernannt wurde,

  1. Füge das Bild in die Gruppe oder Gruppen auf der Seite Qualitätsbilder ein. Das Bild muss auch in den entsprechenden Unterseiten eingefügt werden. Nur drei bis vier der neuesten Bilder sollten auf der Hauptseite angezeigt werden.
  2. Füge den Text {{QualityImage}} ganz unten auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite ein.
  3. Verschiebe die Zeile mit der Nominierung und Kommentar nach Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Juni 2025
  4. Schreibe die Vorlage {{File:Bildname.jpg}} in die Diskussionsseite des Benutzers.

Wenn ein Bild abgelehnt wird,

  1. verschiebe die Zeile mit der Nominierung und Kommentar nach Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Juni 2025
  • Bilder, die noch bewertet werden müssen, sind blau umrandet.
  • Bilder, die ernannt wurden, sind grün umrandet.
  • Bilder, die abgelehnt wurden, sind rot umrandet.

Nicht beurteilte Bilder (blau umrandete Bewerbung)

Vorgeschlagene Bilder, die weder Stimmen für eine zustimmende noch für eine ablehnende Bewertung gesammelt haben oder Einvernehmen – gleicher Widerstand wie Unterstützung in einvernehmlicher Beurteilung – in der Bewertung erzielen, sollten nach acht Tagen auf dieser Seite ohne Auszeichnung von dieser Seite entfernt werden. Archiviert werden solche Bilder unter Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 20 2025, kategorisiert mit Category:Unassessed QI candidates auf der Beschreibungsseite des Bildes.

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) wird immer dann eingesetzt, wenn der oben beschriebene Prozess nicht ausreicht und eine Diskussion erforderlich ist, um zu mehr Meinungen zu kommen.

Wie man um einvernehmliche Beurteilung bittet

Um eine einvernehmliche Beurteilung zu fordern, ändere einfach das /Promotion, /Decline zu /Discuss und füge unmittelbar an die Beurteilung deinen Kommentar an. Ein automatisierter Bot wird es innerhalb eines Tages in den Abschnitt Einvernehmliche Beurteilung verschieben.

Bitte schicke nur Dinge zur einvernehmlichen Beurteilung, die als angenommen oder abgelehnt beurteilt wurden. Im Falle, dass Du als Urteilender Dich nicht entscheiden kannst, hinterlasse Deine Kommentare, aber lasse den Kandidaten auf der Seite.

Regeln für die einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Siehe Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Seite neu laden: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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]] 08:36, 20 Juni 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 20, 2025

June 19, 2025

June 18, 2025

June 17, 2025

June 16, 2025

June 15, 2025

June 14, 2025

June 13, 2025

June 12, 2025

June 11, 2025

June 10, 2025

June 9, 2025

June 8, 2025

June 7, 2025

June 4, 2025

June 3, 2025

Consensual review

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:Gustavsburg_Bleiau.jpg

  • Nomination Ginsheim-Gustavsburg, Bleiaue(e), bird reserve 'Mainmündung und Ginsheimer Altrhein', special area of conservation 'Wanderfischgebiete im Rhein' --KaiBorgeest 21:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Overexposed with poor level of details and blurry right side. Sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    The Motif 'Bleiaue' ist the island in the middle. The rest is just background. --KaiBorgeest 22:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial,_Heidelberg_(P1180506).jpg

  • Nomination Aerial view of Heidelberg --MB-one 14:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Comment White balance is off, shifted towards green --Jakubhal 18:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose As the comment before --Lukas Raich 15:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Giro_d'Italia_2025_stage_17_Passo_Tonale_13.jpg

  • Nomination Peloton on the top of Passo Tonale, Giro d'Italia 2025 --Kallerna 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    a bit blurred the biker on the left --GiovanniPen 23:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Loos_1_residence_fleming.jpg

  • Nomination Apartement building, Résidence Fleming 1, in Loos, France --Velvet 06:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too distorted due to perspective correction, and wires are very disturbing. --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:City_walls_of_La_Cavalerie_15.jpg

  • Nomination City walls of La Cavalerie, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The lower part is nice, the top is out of focus. --Lvova 13:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    I know it's borderline, you are right. I will not move it to CR if you decline ;) --Sebring12Hrs 16:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support I think it is good enough. Yes, the top part is softer, but considering resolution, it is OK --Jakubhal 03:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Well, let's hear more opinions. --Lvova 16:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Spit_of_Vasilievsky_Island.jpg

  • Nomination Spit of the Vasilievsky Island in St. Petersburg --Perituss 19:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose IMO not sharp enough to be QI. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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

  • 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: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_29.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Weak support No problem with focus, but quite small --Jakubhal 04:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality also according to me. Nice composition. --Harlock81 08:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Motortreff_Bella_Italia_2024,_Munich_(P1190251).jpg

  • 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)
  •  Weak support I don't really understand the criteria by which car photos are judged here, but this picture looks like a scene from a steampunk movie, it's interesting and not trivial. Also its technical quality is good enough for QI as far as I can see. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem + "This file has no description, and may be lacking other information." --—kallerna (talk)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  • 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), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20250605_field_sparrow_suffield_wma_PD204762.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Support per Jakubhal. --Harlock81 08:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-necked_puffbird_(Notharchus_hyperrhynchus_hyperrhynchus)_Rio_Napo.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Weak oppose No problem with focus, but for me it is too much oversharpened --Jakubhal 04:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-winged_swallow_(Tachycineta_albiventer)_Rio_Napo.jpg

  • 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)
  •  Support Per Smial Jakubhal 04:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wire-crested_thorntail_(Discosura_popelairii)_female_Wayra.jpg

  • 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

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Jakubhal 04:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This photo looks oversharpened and there are small halos around the longest head feathers. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Asian_Green_Bee-eater_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_14.jpg

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
  •  Support Really good enough for an A4 print. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Talsperre_Wippra_(Juni_2025)_10.jpg

  • 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

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Bad light, heavy CA's, not sharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Indian_paradise_flycatcher_near_Dharampur,_Himachal_Pradesh_-_02.jpg

  • 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), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kanalizatsion_quduq_qopqogʻi._Toshkent,_Chilonzor_k._06.jpg

  • 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

  • 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: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Distel südwestlich von Zell am Ebersberg.jpg

  • 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)
  • @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thx, then I have no other choice than putting it into "Unidentified Cirsium" category. Don't have the competence to identify the plant myself. Multiple different AI tools identify it with high confidentiality as Cirsium arvense; per Bavarian biotope assessment ("Biotopkartierung"), the only Cirsium species found near this area was Cirsium acaule. But I trust your knowledge that both can't be true. --Plozessor 08:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support this nice photo now. Small details of some of the pappus hairs are visible, so that it is clear that this cannot be a Carduus species. Achieving this level of detail is rather difficult IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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

  • 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) * CommentSpecific. I meant that the car is in focus in all its parts and you can understand the details. Anna.Massini 07:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:58, 19 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: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

  • 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), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Строгановский_дворец,_Флора_03.jpg

  • 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: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lagueirões_-Valongo_2025.jpg

  • 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

  • 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:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_23.jpg

  • 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:Rizopolozhensky_Monastery_2024_01.jpg

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

  • 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), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Zeitplan (8 Tage nach Nominierung)

  • Do 12 Jun. → Fr 20 Jun.
  • Fr 13 Jun. → Sa 21 Jun.
  • Sa 14 Jun. → So 22 Jun.
  • So 15 Jun. → Mo 23 Jun.
  • Mo 16 Jun. → Di 24 Jun.
  • Di 17 Jun. → Mi 25 Jun.
  • Mi 18 Jun. → Do 26 Jun.
  • Do 19 Jun. → Fr 27 Jun.
  • Fr 20 Jun. → Sa 28 Jun.