Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

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 November 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 November 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 November 25 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]] 11:11, 25 November 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

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

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).

November 25, 2025

[edit]

November 24, 2025

[edit]

November 23, 2025

[edit]

November 22, 2025

[edit]

November 21, 2025

[edit]

November 20, 2025

[edit]

November 19, 2025

[edit]

November 18, 2025

[edit]

November 17, 2025

[edit]

November 16, 2025

[edit]

November 15, 2025

[edit]

November 14, 2025

[edit]

November 13, 2025

[edit]

November 10, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Fulda_Schloss_Porzellanfigur-20250525-RM-143558.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porcelain figurine of a clarinetist on display at Fulda Castle --Ermell 06:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too shallow DoF, significant parts out of focus --Gower 08:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Impossible to get the whole figure sharp. Eyes and face are sharp. The figure is about 5cm tall. --Ermell 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
 Comment @Ermell: imho possible with greater aperture number and right choiced lens. That one of yours is very good and whole figurine is sharp (maybe it was bigger?): Fulda Schloss Porzellanfigur-20250525-RM-143708.jpg. I even like these not-so-sharp photos and they are also valuable, but maybe not necessarily for QI --Gower 09:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. also rather noisy. If tripods are not permitted, it may not be possible to take high-quality photos in such situations. --Smial 10:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Fulda_Schloss_Porzellanfigur-20250525-RM-143619.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porcelain figurine of a bagpipe player on display at Fulda Castle --Ermell 06:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too shallow DoF. Bottom out of focus. --Gower 08:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Impossible to get the whole figure sharp. Eyes and face are sharp. The figure is about 5cm tall. --Ermell 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Fulda_Schloss_Porzellanfigur-20250525-RM-144150.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porcelain figurine of a horn player exhibited in Fulda Castle --Ermell 06:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too shallow DoF. Only horn is in focus --Gower 08:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Impossible to get the whole figure sharp. Eyes and face are sharp. The figure is about 5cm tall. --Ermell 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. also rather noisy. If tripods are not permitted, it may not be possible to take high-quality photos in such situations. --Smial 10:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Busto_Américo_Vespucio,_Plaza_Italia,_Maracaibo_MG_4718.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Amerigo Vespucci, Italia Square, Maracaibo. --Rjcastillo 03:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low and DoF, monument and front plaque not sharp --Gower 08:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for review. Let's look at other opinions. --Rjcastillo 02:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2017-07-29_France,_Paris_DSC_2611_DxO.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambulatory of the Notre-Dame de Paris, Paris, France --Lrkrol 14:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Wobbanight 14:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sides are not sharp,  Level of detail too low --Jakubhal 19:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Charbel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue de Saint Charbel dans l'église d'Aniche --JackyM59 12:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It lacks sharpness IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 17:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough IMO --Ermell 07:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is the best balance between sharpness and noise that I can achieve. --JackyM59 08:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Alberobello_BW_2016-10-16_13-43-27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alberobello (by Berthold Werner) --Sebring12Hrs 14:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left side is very blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 23:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Sharp enough in A4 size, good lighting, high contrast well handled, good composition. It would be unfair to approve photos scaled down to less than 5 megapixels from 20-megapixel cameras as sharp enough, but reject images with near-full sensor resolution that have minor flaws. --Smial 13:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_basking_position_of_Hasora_badra_(Moore,_(1858))_-_Common_Awl_M.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Resting position of Common Awl (Hasora badra). By User:Sumanbhowmik1992 --Atudu 13:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 13:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good as thumbnail, but  Level of detail too low --Gower 14:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Reisfelder_in_Oemelo_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rice farmer in Oemelo, Lifau, Oecusse, Tmor-Leste. By User:J. Patrick Fischer --Earth605 17:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Wobbanight 20:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good scene. But unfortunately the woman's face is not in focus or motion blurred. --Augustgeyler 22:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Harlock81 09:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not taken by a Commons user. --Plozessor 15:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Swinoujscie_slaughterhouse_water_tower_2021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former boiler room and water tower of the slaughterhouse in Świnoujście. --Gower 12:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 12:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the building is not sharp, and the right side of the image is very blurry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Harlock81 09:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bierun_Gawlik_mausoleum_cross_2018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cross on the top of the Gawlik mausoleum --Gower 12:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is borderline. But there is Dust spots or some editing error in the sky on the right. --Augustgeyler 13:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness, and underexposed, at already quite low resolution. Probably fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 04:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Delta_N420DX_at_Lisbon_Portela_Airport_2025_276.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Delta N420DX at Lisbon Portela Airport --Mike Peel 07:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. I like the composition, but I would like it a little more if the left wing of the aeroplane were cropped a little more. --Lmbuga 01:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background has issues, perspective, overprocessed textures. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, artifacts from noise reduction, wing cut off. Why 1/4500s for a static object? --Plozessor 04:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_Our_Lady_of_Aparecida_2019_24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida, Sao Paulo, Brazil --Mike Peel 20:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 10:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good composition. But unfortunately the upper part is un-sharp while LoD is low and some important highlights are burned out. --Augustgeyler 14:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Harlock81 18:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically not perfect, but acceptable for the situation. IMO the great composition compensates for the minor technical deficits. --Plozessor 04:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 16:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many issues, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 17:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Cour_de_ferme_en_Normandie_-_Claude_Monet.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cour de ferme en Normandie - Claude Monet --JackyM59 19:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support not the sharpest shot, but over the bar for me. The sharpness is uniform, the colors well taken. --Harlock81 10:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Harlock81. --Plozessor 04:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose high level of noise artifacts due to high ISO, sorry --Gower 10:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tokio_Wohnhaus_Daimler-20091019-RM-102720.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential building in Tokyo with a parked Daimler Sovereign --Ermell 06:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good, but too tight crop at the bottom. Tires are cut. --Gower 10:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to cut at bottom. --Augustgeyler 07:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Lets see some more opinions. I did not see your edit on time. The left crop is still very tight. The bottom one is good now. --Augustgeyler 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral OK, but still tight crop. --August (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impresive attempt, but this added area is very blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 21:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Did you use Adobe AI to add the area below the tires? --Plozessor 04:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info Yes. --Ermell 07:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It creates max. 1024 x 1024 pixels, that's why it's so blurry. You can first use regular (non-AI) context-base filling ("Inhaltsbasiert"), then use the AI tool in max. 1024 pixels wide chunks.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_10_Szpitalna_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 10 Szpitalna street, Kraków, Poland.jpg --Igor123121 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 21:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop (bottom) and too intense PC. --Augustgeyler 10:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --E bailey 16:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Егорова,_18_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower part of listed building (bottom-up view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • how about PC? --Gower 16:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    How about reading the description carefully? --Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand what is your point about the description (where I corrected a typo). Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    I meant that this is the tower of a tall building photographed from the ground, it is mentioned in the description, and it is a perspective view that, in my opinion, does not require further straightening. There is another photo of the same tower, also a perspective view, and it has been approved. Gower's photo was approved today, where the tower, also taken from below, is also not vertical. I can find many more similar photos. In this regard, your claims are not very clear to me. --Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    First, in the Gower photo you mentioned, the water tower is completely vertical. Look at the black structure in the center or the top of the water tower; their ends are vertical. Second, in your photo, the perspective is only a few pixels short of being corrected. In fact, it's fairly accurate on the left, but not on the right. --Sebring12Hrs 07:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    The water tower is vertical here, but not there. But I didn't use this example to say, "Oh, what a terribly non-vertical tower." For my taste, this is a normal perspective view. In addition, I reread the guideline again and found nothing there that a deviation of several pixels is unacceptable and does not allow the photo to be promoted. It literally says "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." It's insignificant here, as you say yourself. So what's the problem? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In case it helps (I don't know if I understand you): Perhaps it does not need perspective correction, but are the vertical lines in the centre of the image straight or slightly tilted?--Lmbuga 23:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
    I believe they are straight, but maybe someone can find a few pixels tilt there. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • In my honest opinion it's a bit tilted CCW. Fixable IMO. If you need help, I'll try. Besides, the image is good: it pays to make a small change.--Lmbuga 02:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • But it's true, I don't think the tilt is enough to decline it. It's barely noticeable because perspective correction isn't necessary (IMO).--Lmbuga 03:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I can do these small corrections myself, but I just want to show with this case that the pursuit of perfect verticals does not always make any sense. Thanks for helping hand anyway. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support For the above reasons, but hoping that the correction will be attempted (I think there is a correction that can be made, but not important)--Lmbuga 03:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good now. --Harlock81 16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 10:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 17 Nov → Tue 25 Nov
  • Tue 18 Nov → Wed 26 Nov
  • Wed 19 Nov → Thu 27 Nov
  • Thu 20 Nov → Fri 28 Nov
  • Fri 21 Nov → Sat 29 Nov
  • Sat 22 Nov → Sun 30 Nov
  • Sun 23 Nov → Mon 01 Dec
  • Mon 24 Nov → Tue 02 Dec
  • Tue 25 Nov → Wed 03 Dec