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 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), 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 January 2026.
  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 January 2026.
  • 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 January 05 2026 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]] 11:32, 5 January 2026 (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).


January 5, 2026

[edit]

January 4, 2026

[edit]

January 3, 2026

[edit]

January 2, 2026

[edit]

January 1, 2026

[edit]

December 31, 2025

[edit]

December 30, 2025

[edit]

December 29, 2025

[edit]

December 28, 2025

[edit]

December 27, 2025

[edit]

December 26, 2025

[edit]

December 25, 2025

[edit]

December 24, 2025

[edit]

December 23, 2025

[edit]

December 22, 2025

[edit]

December 21, 2025

[edit]

December 19, 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:Prince_Abdul_Mateen_-_53879742303.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prince Abdul Mateen attending the Charity Polo Day 2024 in Brunei. --Pangalau 13:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not Wikimedian work and grainy --Gower 19:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe it's grainy, but it's wikimedian work as far as I can see. --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Grainy/noisy. And misleading description, it's attributed to a Flickr account, and you need to do some research to find that it's the Commons user's own account. --Plozessor 11:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good scene. But the image is lacking sharpness and detail / and has too much noise. --Augustgeyler 15:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't supported this image, I just wanted to clarify the situation. So I remove this supporting vote, which was assigned to me for formality reasons. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Екатерина Борисова Per rules, moving an already declined image to discussions is an implicit supporting vote. --Plozessor 04:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, I understand. But I have the right to remove this implicit vote afterwards :) -- Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Colombo_Lisbon_November_2025-8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Colombo commercial mall, Lisbon, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 13:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not centered, I'm not convinced by the composition and the perspective. I'd like to see others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 13:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Not a great composition. But I don't see any specific violations of the QI-standards to oppose. --August (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 15:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Colombo_Lisbon_November_2025-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Colombo commercial mall, Lisbon, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Is there a particular reason not to correct the perspective? Okay, you could say it's a low-angle shot, but the framing is not good at all. --Sebring12Hrs 14:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, the reason is because this is what one sees when looking up. Which is, precisely, what I want to show -- Alvesgaspar 19:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_154_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Madonna_Sculpture.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madonna Sculpture by Włodzimierz Konieczny --Scotch Mist 07:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 08:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • (Presumed  Oppose) I disagree, burnt highlights leading to a lack of details especially on the head --Benjism89 09:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sculpture is very brightly lit from ‘above’ for a reason and IMHO this particular lighting effect does not diminish the overall quality of the image! --Scotch Mist 09:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per Scotch Mist. In this case, I believe the overexposure near the top adds to the effect. – Julian Lupyan 15:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed. --Smial 21:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe the light here is artistic, but it's so bright, that we can see just the white oval instead of sculpture's face. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A significant part of the statue is blown out. This may serve an artistic purpose, but is not compatible with QI criteria and Commons' documentary purpose. --Plozessor 04:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI Guidelines - Exposure: "It should be noted that exposure may serve a creative purpose, and this guideline should be evaluated with understanding of the idea or intent of the image." Although an 'amateur' in both respects it seems a pity to me that a preoccupation (sometimes bordering on an obsession with relatively insignificant detail) with technical precision apparently is gradually taking over in QI reviews at the expense of photography as an art form - am not sure that this serves the "Purpose" of QI which is "to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection"! --Scotch Mist 08:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed face --Gower 10:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 10:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Saint_Catherine_church_in_Asti_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint Catherine church in Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purple CAs at top edges. --Sebring12Hrs 03:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oh sorry I didn't notice the support vote, but I have to decline now. --Sebring12Hrs 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_Regibus_in_Asti_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre de Regibus in Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The top of the tower is blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 03:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same. I didn't notice your vote. I'd like to hear other opinions now. --Sebring12Hrs 19:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info I change the status to "Discuss". --Sebring12Hrs 19:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Broich-Außenansicht-Straße-Highres-2025-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination High resolution street view of Broich Castle in Mülheim --Tuxyso 10:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The left area is very blurred, trees are blurred at left. --Sebring12Hrs 14:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment with regard to the extreme resolution the detail quality im imho more than OK. --Tuxyso 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Brissac_-_Nord_Est.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Brissac - Nord Est --JackyM59 11:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sky is burnt, the rest is kind of soft? --DimiTalen 08:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky could be darkened and the facade brightened. --Sebring12Hrs 14:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Scotch Mist 17:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 20:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose burnt clouds, unfortunate lighting. --Smial 21:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Gorzanów,_zamek,_oficyna_mieszkalna_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential outbuilding in Gorzanów 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment high blue/purple fringing on the left (tree branches) --Gower 12:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue fringing still high after corrections --Gower 10:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discussion. --Jacek Halicki 10:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A nice image. The blue fringing is minor but easily recognisable. --Augustgeyler 09:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Escultura_Guardian_de_relicario_con_flauta.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guardian sculpture of reliquary with flute. --Rjcastillo 01:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unwanted shadow. --ROCKY 03:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 04:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadow and too warm WB for an image like this. We would need more exact colour reproduction like we are use to at paintings. --August (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB, fixable. --Plozessor 13:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Thanks for comments. New version. --Rjcastillo 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It did improve with the new WB. But the shadow is still a thing as well es the small DoF. --Augustgeyler 17:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now. --Scotch Mist 17:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 17:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 17:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:1069698_II_19,_CHURCH_STREET_ST_MARY'S_Sandwich_20250910_0002.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sandwich: 19, CHURCH STREET ST MARY'S. By User:Tilman2007 --Augustgeyler 11:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Right area is motion blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 10:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. I see no motion blur at the building. Only the street shows some minor un-sharp areas on the right. --Augustgeyler 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right side is a bit blurry, I think it's just out of focus due too low f-number, not motion blurred. But I don't understand the composition - why only show the left half of the building? --Plozessor 13:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:An_der_Überfuhr_Leoben_06-2025_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bicycle path over the river Mur, an der Überfuhr Leoben --Aciarium 12:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Dust spot in the sky to clone out --Gower 12:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Aplucas0703 17:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Untill dust spots aren't fixed.--Milseburg 10:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots --August 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Warszawa,_Gmach_Główny_Politechniki_Warszawskiej_DZolopa_2022-08-18_091102_1165.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Warszawa, Politechnika Warszawska courtyard. By User:Daniel.zolopa --Gower 16:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 17:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sunlight is almost blown out. It's natural, but is it good for QI? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Here is the issue are CAs and noise IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 03:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 9:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kościół_ewangelicki_w_Żeliszowie,_empory_w_trakcie_renowacji.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakowska_street,_view_to_S,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ulica Krakowska, widok na płd, Kazimierz, Kraków, 2025 --Igor123121 08:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 11:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Front buildings are too distorted due to intense PC. --Augustgeyler 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness and WB is not good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Na_Stawach_square,_northern_buildings,_Krakow,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Na Stawach square, northern buildings, Krakow, Poland --Igor123121 08:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 11:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose High angle and intense PC led to unrealistic impression of the main buildings. They are distorted and look like falling backwards. --Augustgeyler 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness and WB is not good. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Alois_Edlinger-Gasse_Leoben_06-2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Alois Edlinger-Gasse, Leoben, from the west. --Aciarium 07:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky to remove and noise could be reduced. --Milseburg 19:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… @Milseburg: Thank you for notifying me, I will address the issues in a few days. --Aciarium 21:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Forschungszentrum_für_Wasserstoff_und_Kohlenstoff,_MUL,_06-2025_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Research Center for Hydrogen and Carbon of Montanuniversität Leoben, west facade. --Aciarium 07:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky to remove, noise could be reduced. Several of your other images have the same problem. Please keep an eye on this. --Milseburg 19:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… @Milseburg: Thank you for notifying me about this issue. It appears that in Lightroom, performing PC after using the eraser tool changes the eraser‘s position, effectively not removing the dust spots. I will be able to address the problem in a few days. --Aciarium 21:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Caracol_marino_(Cypraea_tigris),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger cowrie (Cypraea tigris), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 04:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Out of focus. --Pdanese 11:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It does look blurry, but it isn't. It is a visual effect of the pattern of the shell. Look at the sand on the shell, it is sharp. The shell has --Poco a poco 19:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. This is how tiger cowries appear naturally. – Julian Lupyan 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced by the reasoning. To me, it's blurry, sorry. By the way, I don't see those clear sand sharp or lack of CAs --Lmbuga 06:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Lmbuga: You should inform yourself before giving such a feedback, an oppose shouldn't be based in beliefs, that's unrespectful. Otherwise I assume that you believe that I'm lying. Did you make a Internet search? or looked into QI Llez' QI? or into the Commons category? Poco a poco 12:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Plozessor 20:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obviously out of focus. Alvesgaspar 20:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Can you please, provide evidence? --Poco a poco 20:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Well, it is blurry, no doubt about that. If it is out of focus or any other reason is open to discussion. But irrelevant for a quality assessment -- Alvesgaspar 21:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This red dot and this reflected flash in the center do not help the composition meet the QI criteria. --Sebring12Hrs 22:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Really a pity that nobody here proves me wrong and shows a shell with a sharp pattern. Disappointing. I've no doubt that Llez QI deserves the star, how do you explain that it isn't sharp? Poco a poco 09:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even though this image is not unusually blurry for an underwater photo and even though the author appears to be right about the pattern that just looks blurry because it is like that, I have doubts about the peculiar blue and red reflections in the center, even though there was no flash according to Exif data. And the image looks rather grainy, even at lower resolution. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This is a very tricky nomination. I agree with the low sharpness and the question Robert raised about the source of the reflections. But: There is clear evidence about the main object being in focus. If we look next to the blue and red reflections we can see some imperfections on the "skin" of the Tiger cowrie, these "scratches" or little "holes" are clearly and sharply visible. I think this is proofing the focus on the object. The object itself tries too look unsharp by nature. Very interesting. --Augustgeyler 23:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_026_St_Mary_Basilica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary’s Basilica Towers & Church Dome, Krakow --Scotch Mist 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good, but it would be advisable to correct the perspective to be QI. The dark tones are too dark, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 08:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO image not conducive to PC so QI should be determined on other factors - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • You come storming in --Lmbuga 10:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, no perspective correction is needed here, as this is a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint. However, the dark tones are too dark at the moment — something that could easily be corrected. --Augustgeyler 18:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Sebring12Hrs 11:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Do you wish to reconsider your opposition given that Lmbuga is no longer opposed to QI and the 'votes' are tied? --Scotch Mist 14:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your constructive comment - have lightened dark tones! --Scotch Mist 08:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now it's ok ! --Sebring12Hrs 10:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --August (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Better. I'm withdrawing my negative vote because it's a very good photo, but I think the distortion is excessive because it doesn't look like it was taken from that low. --Lmbuga (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the framing looks wrong to me. Alvesgaspar 20:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, a slight lack of perspective correction is disturbing, it should be done. Poco a poco 20:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
 Support now Poco a poco 10:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 28 Dec → Mon 05 Jan
  • Mon 29 Dec → Tue 06 Jan
  • Tue 30 Dec → Wed 07 Jan
  • Wed 31 Dec → Thu 08 Jan
  • Thu 01 Jan → Fri 09 Jan
  • Fri 02 Jan → Sat 10 Jan
  • Sat 03 Jan → Sun 11 Jan
  • Sun 04 Jan → Mon 12 Jan
  • Mon 05 Jan → Tue 13 Jan