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 September 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 September 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 September 08 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]] 14:50, 8 September 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).


September 8, 2025

[edit]

September 7, 2025

[edit]

September 6, 2025

[edit]

September 5, 2025

[edit]

September 4, 2025

[edit]

September 3, 2025

[edit]

September 2, 2025

[edit]

September 1, 2025

[edit]

August 31, 2025

[edit]

August 30, 2025

[edit]

August 29, 2025

[edit]

August 28, 2025

[edit]

August 27, 2025

[edit]

August 26, 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:Grotte_der_Egeria,_Wörlitz_(August_2023)_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grotto of Egeria in Wörlitz Park --Romzig 12:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image quality is good, but the composition is not. When taking the photo, the column on the right should have been avoided. Now, if possible (I think it's very difficult), it needs to be cropped out. --Lmbuga 22:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Тбилиси,_собака_на_Ботанической_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dog at Botanikuri street. Tbilisi, Georgia. --Красный 09:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Photo too similar to File:Тбилиси, собака на Ботанической (2).jpg, who has also been nominated. I approve the other one, but I reject this one because it is not appropriate to have two photos that are so similar or identical. --Lmbuga 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
    I see no prohibition in the rules to nominate images, which may form a series, but are not identical. We have a lot of such series here, so please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I am making this comment because I need to know if I am confused. This is what the QIC guidelines say:"Normally there should not be multiple featured pictures that are too similar to each other. The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the finest images—the top fraction of a percent. As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted. The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances. There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images and there is no formal mechanism for delisting quality images."

The text is well written?, or where it says ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images’, it should say ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar images’ that can be QI? or ‘There is no restriction on the number of similar Quality images’. Furthermore, writing ‘The purpose of the Featured image status...’ is not the same as writing ‘The purpose of the featured image status...’. Quality images have featured picture status, but they are not Featured pictures. --Lmbuga 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

In English it seems very clear, but those slight inaccuracies mean that the Portuguese translation does not convey the same meaning. I read QIguidelines in Portuguese.--Lmbuga 13:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral--Lmbuga 13:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Mauzoleum_von_Magnisów_w_Ołdrzychowicach_Kłodzkich_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mausoleum of von Magnis family in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    You've already nominated 5 pictures today --Benjism89 09:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 09:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
    Good quality, but as I mentioned earlier, you've nominated 10 pictures on the same day, then 5 again on the next day. I assume you did this unwillingly, but in this case, please do not nominate 5 pictures on the next day as this would be unfair to the many people here who stick to the 5-pictures-a-day-rule. --Benjism89 08:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суздаль_2025,_Входоиерусалимская_церковь_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem (Suzdal) --Vsatinet 21:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 00:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Many dust spots on the sky. So many that it seems difficult to solve, sorry. --Lmbuga 02:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to find and fix obvious dust spots, and I think you don't mean spots of dust on the matrix, but traces of snowflakes that got into the frame. In the frame you can see that it was snowing at that time. -- Vsatinet 10:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is just snow falling from the sky, no dust spots to me too. But it seems the building is leaning, isn't it ? --Sebring12Hrs 20:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I've seen snow about five times in my life, at most. I wasn't aware of the impact of snow in a photo. Your picture is good. --Lmbuga 21:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I think I have exaggerated. I have seen snow-covered roofs, I have seen sleet falling, but I have never seen it snow.--Lmbuga 21:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суздаль_2025,_Стучилова_башня_Спасо-Евфимиева_монастыря_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The southern tower of the Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery --Vsatinet 21:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 00:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Several dust spots --Lmbuga 02:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I tried to fix it -- Vsatinet 10:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. There is one left on the right branch of the tree on the right, but it is almost imperceptible. I wouldn't bother removing it.--Lmbuga 22:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Balmoral_Mounds_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balmoral Mounds historic marker side 1 in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. --Ktkvtsh 04:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Looks overprocessed, thoughts? --Aethonatic 11:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
    This is how my phone took the image. I didn’t edit it any further. --Ktkvtsh 15:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Bhagwandas_Sabnani_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bhagwandas Sabnani in June 2025I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 00:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 04:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose It's a good photo of a photogenic individual, but I don't like the lack of detail (head and forehead, for example), the noise (hair), and the spotlight that burns the photo and is visible on the forehead. --Lmbuga 16:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose per Lmbuga. --Heylenny 15:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Capitol_temples_-_sbeitla.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the 3 temples dedicated to the Capitoline triad Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, in SbeitlaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. By User:Skander zarrad --Houss 2020 23:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 08:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not so bad, but it is noisy, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs and because the entire upper part of the photo (empty sky) should be removed (cropped) to focus the viewer's attention on the subject of the photo.--Lmbuga 22:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and not great framing. Could be fixed with edits though. --TheBritinator 13:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Walk_through_the_historic_settlements_of_Katowice_at_Wikimania_2024_(20).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Commercial van at the historic settlements of Katowice --Gnoeee 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion Little noise but QI in my opinion --Cvmontuy 01:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Heylenny 20:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Yes noisy or not very sharp, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 12:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Ugele_Children.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ugele ChildrenI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 international photographic contest. By User:Dappasolomon001 --Suyash.dwivedi 19:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment not categorized, please add relevant categories --George Chernilevsky 20:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 00:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
    Sill has not any category --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. And category is o. k. now. -- Spurzem 14:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now -- George Chernilevsky 16:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 16:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Værøy_Måstadvika_lub_2025-07-23_img01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View over the Måstadvika on Værøy in Nordland, Norway --L. Beck 13:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. For me, this photo would be perfect with a little more light and with the boat on the right completely visible, but QI IMO --Lmbuga 13:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Two dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 19:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the two dust spots. With them, it can't be QI IMO.--Lmbuga 05:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Værøy_Moskenstraumen_lub_2025-07-23_img01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Værøy across the Moskenstraumen to Mosken and Moskenesøy in Nordland, Norway --L. Beck 13:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 13:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots again. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Gamla_Uppsala_August_2025_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Mounds of Gamla Uppsala. --ArildV 12:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, appears unnaturally saturated. --TheBritinator 15:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
    • New version uploaded. --ArildV 06:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 13:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- George Chernilevsky 18:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 21:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Heylenny 22:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Cameron_Bharat_Tea_Plantation,_Cameron_Highlands,_Malaysia,_20250829_1535_4120.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cameron Bharat Tea Plantation, Cameron Highlands, Malaysia --Jakubhal 03:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is not much sharpness in details. --Syntaxys 03:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@Syntaxys: Please do not reset templates to nomination, change to discuss if you disagree. Regarding your comment I think it is sharp enough Jakubhal 03:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: The problem is the way this application works. When I had prepared my comment, I was the first to comment on your picture. When I sent it together with other reviews, that was no longer the case.
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Photos taken in relatively diffuse lighting often appear blurrier than comparable images taken in direct, unobscured sunlight due to the lower local contrast. The image appears good enough to me. --Smial 11:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial -- George Chernilevsky 18:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Natuurgebied_Groote_Zand_in_Boswachterij_Hooghalen._18-08-2025._(d.j.b)_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Group of trees on a heathland in the Groote Zand nature reserve in the Hooghalen Forestry Department.--Famberhorst 04:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

* Oppose Please check the WB, clouds are looking too reddish to me.--Milseburg 13:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Thanks. I think, it's okay now and quud quality. --Milseburg 20:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 20:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC))

File:Приморский_парк_Победы,_сирень_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Syringa vulgaris in Primorsky Park of Victory, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that it is not sharp enough. --TheBritinator 12:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-08-10_D500-0076_Achim-Lammerts_FFH-Hördter-Rheinaue.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Michelsbach creek in the Hördter Rheinaue FFH protected area. --Syntaxys 13:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The sky is burnt, I don't think you can save it --Poco a poco 15:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This is a backlight situation and the sky wasn't blue this time. --Syntaxys 17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • That's clear to me, but fact is, that it is overexposed, not all images can become QI --Poco a poco 06:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Please discuss. What do you think is the main motif in this picture? The sky or the wild floodplain in the bright morning light, after the haze has dissolved into high fog? --Syntaxys 17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky is very bright, but the compo is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 21:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is overexposed. --TheBritinator 12:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

File:D-6-5928-0002_Turmhügel_Hundsrück_(Wülflingen)_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Location of former motte-and-bailey castle Hundsrück near Wülflingen (archaeological monument) --Plozessor 02:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, sky on the very far left looks too artificial too me.--Milseburg 09:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the light is a bit harsh at the upper left in the sky, but the compo and the sharpness are very good. --Sebring12Hrs 20:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the turquoise tone but the clouds are blown too. --Milseburg 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per milseburg. --Smial 09:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg and Smial: Improved the left part of the sky, please have another look. --Plozessor
    •  Comment I don't see any real improvement. Now the banding is even more pronounced. Although the very first version of the panorama also suffered from overexposed clouds on the left edge, the sky and landscape were otherwise still reasonably natural in color. This had the side effect that the color distortion into turquoise was hardly noticeable at a glance. --Smial 15:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
      • @Milseburg and Smial: Now I just cloned another part of the sky to fix the corner, what do you think? --Plozessor 03:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
        • There is a strong edge to the left of the cloud on the far left.--Milseburg 11:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
          • @Milseburg: Couldn't see that but did some more retouching ... --Plozessor 18:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture is beautiful, but if we divide the image into three parts, between the left and center sections, at the height of the trees, there is a vertical color change in the sky. The trees on the left have an anomalous bluish border (edge), while those on the right are perfect.--Lmbuga 05:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm sure about the vertical change, but as for the edges, that may just be my opinion.--Lmbuga 05:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've marked what I mean, see notes. --Milseburg 21:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg: Danke, hätte ich (auch mit deinen Hinweisen) ohne massive Kontrastverstärkung nicht gesehen. Hab jetzt fünf solche Kanten entfernt, schau bitte nochmal! --Plozessor 02:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 31 Aug → Mon 08 Sep
  • Mon 01 Sep → Tue 09 Sep
  • Tue 02 Sep → Wed 10 Sep
  • Wed 03 Sep → Thu 11 Sep
  • Thu 04 Sep → Fri 12 Sep
  • Fri 05 Sep → Sat 13 Sep
  • Sat 06 Sep → Sun 14 Sep
  • Sun 07 Sep → Mon 15 Sep
  • Mon 08 Sep → Tue 16 Sep