Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]] 23:25, 24 November 2024 (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).


July 19, 2023

July 18, 2023

July 17, 2023

July 16, 2023

July 15, 2023

July 14, 2023

July 13, 2023

July 12, 2023

July 11, 2023

July 10, 2023

July 9, 2023

July 8, 2023

July 7, 2023

July 5, 2023

July 3, 2023

July 2, 2023

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:Emerald_Tree_Boa,_Toronto_Zoo_03.jpg

  • Nomination Emerald Tree Boa at Toronto Zoo. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Relativity 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark IMO. Sorry. --Ermell 13:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)@Ermell: Given the environment of the indoor room, thats the best possible outcome. Increasing the light or ISO would result too much noise.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment New version uploaded. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

}}

File:Arboreal_Ratsnake_05.jpg

  • Nomination Arboreal Ratsnake at Toronto zoo --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Relativity 05:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far too dark and very blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 13:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell --Jakubhal 07:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost like the picture of a black cat in the dark basement with no light. -- Spurzem 07:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC) @Spurzem: I agree with you, that's how it looks like in real life in that room. I wished there were enough light or my camera was good enough to use high ISO without noise :')--Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment New version uploaded. As it was an indoor room with very low light and the snake was also moving ver fast, I used the settings to take the picture with lesser grains. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:05_2023_Views_from_London_Millennium_Bridge_IMG_7474.jpg

  • Nomination View from London Millennium Bridge.--Alexander-93 08:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Mostly good, but soft - can you sharpen it? --Mike Peel 11:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 17:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment It's now oversharpened. Is there a middle ground? Your car photos have been so sharp, it's puzzling why these wider photos are less sharp. --Mike Peel 22:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment other camera use - the car photos where made with professional equipment, while the traveling photos have been shot with a canon 2000 --Grunpfnul 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
          •  Support Fair enough, converted to support as it's good enough. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Oversharpened, unsharp. --Kallerna 06:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 06:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --LexKurochkin 14:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 14:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:P1320213_Paris_IV_rue_St-Louis-en-ile_boutique_rwk.jpg

  • Nomination Paris 4 rue St-Louis-en-ile, boutique (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but IMO too small for such an easy shot. Also I don't like intentionally blurred people --Jakubhal 13:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a 2015 photo taken with a w:Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 that had a maximum resolution of only 3648 × 2736 (10.1 megapixels), it's a good photo, and the blurring on the people is probably useless, because I think they'd be clearly identifiable to someone who knew them, anyway, but I don't consider that a reason to decline. -- Ikan Kekek 20:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This picture is not 10.1 megapixels, but slightly less than 3, for the still subject. --Jakubhal 04:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It was probably cropped from a larger photo of facades on that street to make it a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It is not the best photo I've ever seen, but good enough for QI. --LexKurochkin 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info I have marked it as retouched picture. --LexKurochkin 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Kodak_Brownie_127.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Speedcube_GAN.jpg

  • Nomination Stickerless GAN 356 RS 3x3 speedcube, view from blue-orange side. --多多123 18:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, noisy and some CAs --Mike Peel 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I will try to fix the issues. --多多123 20:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it's noisy? The CA is just on the left side of the blue, the rest is the color of the other side blending in. --多多123 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • There's no noise IMO, the texture is like that on the cube and the table is also very "noisy" as well as the wall behind, but you can add annotations on the image if you can see any noise. --多多123 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 09:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:At_New_York_City_2023_072.jpg

  • Nomination World Yachts Princess and Duchess at Manhattan --Mike Peel 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry - too dark, particularly in the mid-tones. Also, very cluttered with the pylon in front and the dock in the back. Need to focus and isolate for a better view of the ship(s). A day with better weather would also be helpful. --GRDN711 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dull light, bad crop. --Kallerna 06:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me, and the crop is OK. Some days are like that, and while the photo is not pixel sharp or anything like that, I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Ikan. The white painted areas on the ship's superstructure are correctly exposed. If you simply make the image brighter, they will lose any detail. You might want to tweak the gradation slider a bit to carefully lighten the middle tones. This should be done during RAW development, because if you tinker with the JPG, you'll end up with unwanted artifacts and tonal breaks. --Smial 16:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:SGH-L760.jpg

  • Nomination Samsung Ted Baker SGH-L760 in coral pink. --多多123 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the picture would be more useful if it was turned to the right so that the phone was facing the right way. If necessary, perspective or exposure would have to be corrected. But as it is, not much can be done with it. --Аныл Озташ 22:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Turning it to the right is irrational as the shot is this way, I would have to remove the shadow or it would look out of place. --多多123 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is extremely rare for me to reject QIC because of an odd composition, but combined with the unconvincing lighting with harsh, multiple shadows, I do not consider this photo to be a well executed subject shot under studio conditions. --Smial 00:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
     Info "Studio" conditions is a bit too much, the only thing I did for this image was put it on a table next to a wall and take the photo. --多多123 10:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Studio conditions does not mean that someone buys or rents a many $$$ expensive professional studio, but that one can use the possibility to control the light, the background and the arrangement of the objects to be photographed at will. Unlike outdoor or action or available light or street photography. Many of my "studio photos" were taken simply with a piece of photo cardboard as a background, a white sheet of paper as a brightener and a halogen construction spotlight or a window (without direct sunlight) as a light source. --Smial 11:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 Comment Oh, okay. --多多123 11:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Чепура_велика_на_ставі.jpg

  • Nomination Protected area in Ukraine By User:Byrdyak --Luda.slominska 09:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is not in focus. --多多123 19:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
     Support The head seems to be in focus for me, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. Other than that it's good quality, so promote. Relativity 05:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • weak  Support User 多多123's objection is correct, but I think the image sharpness is still sufficient for a usable A4-size printout. Nice colours, lighting, and composition. --Smial 16:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support agree with others. --GRDN711 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality for a bird captured in flight. -- Ikan Kekek 20:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:BMW_M4_CSL_IMG_7638.jpg

  • Nomination BMW M4 CSL in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very unfavorable lighting, making it almost impossible to see the wheels, unnecessarily narrowly cut; I don't think it's a quality picture. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, wheels are obviously visible, even with a white overlay, lighting does not affect the composition too much, crop isn't as narrow as other images. --多多123 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Mike Peel 19:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_moisture_sucking_of_Graphium_nomius_(Esper,_1799)_-_Spot_Swordtail_WLB.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing moisture sucking of Graphium nomius (Esper, 1799) - Spot Swordtail WLB --Anitava Roy 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --多多123 15:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose too soft for me --Charlesjsharp 21:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality.--Luda.slominska 14:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Mike Peel 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:রয়াল_এনফিল্ড_মিটিওর_৩৫০_স্টিলার_রেড.jpg

  • Lighting doesn't seem to be a problem IMO, the crop is fine for me and the background would be the only problem actually, all IMO. --多多123 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight bottom crop and disturbing background -- Jakubhal 05:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, especially due to the overlapping images from the background. -- Ikan Kekek 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Recknitz_Valley,_Ahrenshagen-Daskow_(LRM_20200607_171900-hdr-Pano).jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the Recknitz Valley in Ahrenshagen-Daskow --MB-one 07:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching errors on the outher sides --Grunpfnul 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've added notes in the two places concerned. --Аныл Озташ 09:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's right, I didn't see the issue, removed my support vote. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Wolford_Cotton_Velvet_Rib_bodysuit_and_tights_-_black_and_white_version.jpg

  • Nomination Wolford Cotton Velvet Rib bodysuit and tights - black and white version --Tobias ToMar Maier 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Derivative work of the image on the left that I just tagged as QI --Poco a poco 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is made from the same RAW file, that is true. I assumed it would not matter. And I don't think an 8-Bit jpeg would yield the same result. But you could try to make one for comparison.--Tobias ToMar Maier 22:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • If you believe that rather this version is the better one, I can support here and would oppose the other one. No problem with that. Poco a poco 18:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment What a clumsy pose! --Palauenc05 10:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6344_by_Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination Women's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Melanie Leupolz. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • You are not going to damage the image removing that CA. Is this anyhow a good portrait where the subject is closing her eyes? I  Oppose because of that. Poco a poco 18:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Poco a poco and User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6335_by_Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination Women's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Klara Bühl. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment Lack of chromatic aberrations is part of the image guidelines. It's quite an easy fix, and I believe it will not "distort the image" if you do that skilfully --Jakubhal 06:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-06-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Deutsche_Nationalmannschaft,_Media_Day_1DX_6316_by_Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination FWomen's soccer, German national team, Media Day: Chantal Hagel. By --Stepro 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA on shoulders, fixable? --Mike Peel 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Of course, photos with an open aperture in the blazing sun produce CA. These are mostly removed by software, but not completely. I don't want to distort the image with excessive editing and mess up the background. For me, the question is what to expect from such photos. Expecting a studio photo is unrealistic in my opinion and setting the (technical) expectations of a photo should always take into account the situation in which it was taken, in my opinion. --Stepro 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Mike Peel --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment If it's just a green CA, it's easily fixable if you make the green saturation 0. As there is no other green object in the picture, it wouldn't affect anything else.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Nötsch_Sankt_Georgen_2_Pfarramt_04072023_4103.jpg

  • Nomination Rectory in Sankt Georgen im Gailtal #2, Nötsch, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 03:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Verticals a bit off --CherryX 08:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @CherryX: Thanks. Verticals have been corrected. —- Johann Jaritz 04:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Mike Peel 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Matka_Canyon_Skopje_3.jpg

  • Nomination Matka Canyon, Skopje. --Kallerna 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlucky crop (few space at the top and the bottom) --CherryX 18:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Gorgeous photo, but I have to agree with CherryX that the crop at the bottom is too tight, I'm sorry. ReneeWrites 08:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support A bit more space at the top and the bottom would be nice, but I think it's ok for a QI. --Sandro Halank 17:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Sandro --Michielverbeek 05:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is OK to me, but is the white balance too blue? -- Ikan Kekek 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good to me.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:06_2023_Castello_di_Miramare_(Trieste)_IMG_7559.jpg

  • Nomination Mediterranean Sea at Trieste.--Alexander-93 06:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Question Too many blown-out areas. Fixable? --LexKurochkin 09:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 12:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 09:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
     Half done  Weak oppose Sorry, but let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Nice image, sharp enough, good lighting, good colors. What should it be more for QI? I see no lack. -- Spurzem 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but too low detail level. --Tournasol7 15:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7 --Sandro Halank 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a decent A4 size print. I don't see what the photographer would have done wrong. Even though the lens used may not give as much detail as one that cost many thousands of $, at least the photo is cleanly finished, CA or distortions are not visible. At most, you could ask for a little less noise reduction. --Smial 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline image for me, but tend to support --PantheraLeo1359531 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - please eliminate the dust spots in the upper center (unless they're really clouds) and smooth out the somewhat blotchy sky. -- Ikan Kekek 13:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I eliminated the spots in a new version of the image.--Alexander-93 16:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support acceptable --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)