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 December 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 December 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 December 29 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]] 05:43, 29 December 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).


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 20, 2025

[edit]

December 19, 2025

[edit]

December 18, 2025

[edit]

December 17, 2025

[edit]

December 16, 2025

[edit]

December 13, 2025

[edit]

December 12, 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:TropaeolummajusMDP.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tropaeolum majus (garden nasturtium) in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too grainy, sorry. --TheBritinator 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    Reprocessed --Ezarate 23:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Hypochaerisradicata-MDP.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 'Hypochaeris radicata (catsear) in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too grainy, sorry. --TheBritinator 21:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    Reprocessed --Ezarate 23:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Tokyo_Tower,_Minato_City.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A high-angle night photograph of Tokyo, Japan. The Tokyo Tower is prominently illuminated in its traditional orange "Landmark Light." To the left, several modern skyscrapers are visible, including the Azabudai Hills Mori JP Tower and the Roppongi Hills Mori Tower. The foreground and background are filled with a dense grid of lower-rise buildings and residential blocks, creating a tapestry of urban lights. The atmosphere is clear, showing the vast scale of the metropolis at night. --Davekern 18:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I like it, but there is posterization in the sky. --Sebring12Hrs 18:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! I can see that now - think I've resolved it by adding a bit of noise to the file. WDYT? --Davekern 19:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    Better ! But the last issue is the vignetting, it's may be a bit strong. --Sebring12Hrs 21:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. I took a look and reduce the vignetting a bit. Image is a lot brighter, in a positive way. LMK --Davekern 21:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
     Info Changed status back from Discuss to Nomination --Augustgeyler 01:06, 29 December 2025 (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 Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Dust spots in the sky to remove and noise could be reduced. --Milseburg 19:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: Thank you for notifying me, I will address the issues in a few days. --Aciarium 21:32, 28 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 Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC) 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)
    @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)

File:Office_building,_1_Na_Stawach_square,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Office building, 1 Na Stawach square, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Strong distortion at cars below and on main building due to intense PC. --Augustgeyler 14:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discuss --Igor123121 22:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Kraków_Główny_train_station,_aerial_view_2025._Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

File:PZL_M-15_(Belphegor),,_Polish_Aviation_Museum,_39_Jana_Pawła_II_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PZL M-15 (Belphegor), Polish Aviation Museum, 39 Jana Pawła II Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Aciarium 09:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Composition and DoF: Distracting background. --Augustgeyler 14:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Bhadrabahu_Cave_in_Shravanabelagola.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bhadrabahu Cave in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka, India. --Rohit14400 08:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    highly tilted --Gower 13:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Agree with aforementioned. --DimiTalen 08:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Tilt corrected. Kindly check now --Rohit14400 07:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
    Since the corrections have not been checked by the reviewers, the photo requires further discussion, IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 04:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:GLAM_Wiki_Conference_2025_Walking_Tour_053.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GLAM Wiki Conference 2025 Walking Tour --Panpanchik 07:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 07:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but there's no proper description, no categories, no coords, so it's useless for wikis. --Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина - description and categorization not meeting QI standards. --Plozessor 04:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:GLAM_Wiki_Conference_2025_Walking_Tour_051.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GLAM Wiki Conference 2025 Walking Tour --Panpanchik 07:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 07:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but there's no proper description, no categories, no coords, so it's useless for wikis. --Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина - description and categorization not meeting QI standards. (Exposure could be discussed.) --Plozessor 04:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Tram-EM_2024,_Frankfurt_(IMG_1769).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gymnastics equipment --MB-one 10:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration on the buildings on the right; needs PC --Aciarium 09:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 22:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_3.4_Mark_II_,_TC_24,_Essen_(TCE42690).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grille of a Jaguar 3.4 Litre Mark II with AA membership badge (no. M6360) and Saint Christopher's plaque --MB-one 15:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose DoF --Aciarium 09:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Too much or too little DoF? I don't understand --MB-one 22:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Good picture with adequate DoF, but slightly tilted (left side leaning in). --Plozessor 04:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_061.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Angel Relief Sculpture in Old Town Market Square --Scotch Mist 07:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The net in front of the motif ruins the image. --NorbertNagel 13:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The netting is permanently in front of the sculpture, presumably to keep the pigeons away from the already eroded sculpture, so this should not be a factor in assessing the quality of the image (read photo). --Scotch Mist 15:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This shouldn't have gone to discussions since there is no vote. Anyway, good image. The net is there in reality, its presence on the picture is a not a photographic defect. --Plozessor 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --August (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 12:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Red-legged_cormorant_(Poikilocarbo_gaimardi)_in_flight_Chiloe_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-legged cormorant (Poikilocarbo gaimardi) --Charlesjsharp 23:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but one of the wing is cut, which too disturbing. Please discuss. I'm not sure everyone here think it's QI ;) --Sebring12Hrs 11:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Vienna_House_Andel’s_Cracow,_aerial_view,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vienna House Andel’s Cracow, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low and too soft --Aciarium 17:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discuss --Igor123121 23:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. to me--Ermell 22:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 21:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 22:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Strzelecki_garden,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strzelecki Garden, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discuss --Igor123121 23:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough.--Ermell 22:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ermell. --Sebring12Hrs 21:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 22:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jüdischer_Friedhof_Nienburg_160.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jüdischer Friedhof Nienburg --Lvova 10:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space --Aciarium 09:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment A nitpick. There's too much negative space to read the inscription on the stone, but it's fine for seeing the context, the density of the burial, and the level of care. --Lvova 13:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • No issues with the composition and crop, but with the perspective - it's leaning out on both sides. Thus temporary  Oppose until that is fixed. --Plozessor 09:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Horst-Feldberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Taunus with the Großer Feldberg in a distance of 71 km, seen from the Horst in the Vogelsberg Mountains. In the foreground the Nieder-Moos pond, Hesse, Germany --Milseburg 13:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Purple fringing on the branches, DoF --Aciarium 09:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't see the fringing. I think the DoF is well choosen to lead the view to the mentioned distance. Please discuss. --Milseburg 11:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA (purple fringes) at the branches in the upper edges. Otherwise acceptable. --Plozessor 09:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info @Plozessor and Aciarium: I've made a new upload. Please have a look, whether there are purple fringes left. --Milseburg 19:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Saab_JA-37_Viggen._Polish_Aviation_Museum,_39_Jana_Pawła_II_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saab JA-37 Viggen, Polish Aviation Museum, 39 Jana Pawła II Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs PC --Aciarium 09:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_14_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 14 Zielona Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 18:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space, also  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discussion. Worse photos get QI here. --Jacek Halicki 09:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_14_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 14 Zielona Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 18:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space; also  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discussion. Worse photos get QI here. --Jacek Halicki 09:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Level of detail is not good, but OK here. But burned out highlights in the centre are not QI.--August (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:CH.BE.Boenigen_2021-08-15_Seaplane-Meeting_5283_16x9-R_8192x4608.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seaplane-Meeting in Boenigen 2021, Switzerland. By User:Roy Egloff --Augustgeyler 18:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much space around subject; sharpening+denoise distorts the text near the propeller --Aciarium 16:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. There The subject is well proportioned within the frame. --Augustgeyler 01:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20240511_male_baltimore_oriole_south_meadows_PD204233.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male Baltimore oriole, South Meadows Trail, East Hartford, CT USA --Pdanese 12:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low, otherwise nice colors and composition. Sorry! --Aciarium 16:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 02:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough as for 600 mm lens --Gower 21:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 21:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 21:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Emila_Zegadłowicza_street,_view_to_W,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Emila Zegadłowicza street, view to W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 10:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DimiTalen 10:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple fringes on branches, and the tree is blurry. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_activity_of_Castalius_rosimon_(Fabricius,_1775)_-_Common_Pierrot_(Female)_WLB_IMG_5022a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking activity of Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775) - Common Pierrot (Female) --Sandipoutsider 10:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient sharpness --Jacek Halicki 10:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well above the bar IMO. Please discuss. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I love butterflies but  Level of detail too low and partially unsharp, sorry --Gower 21:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 21:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lubicz_Park_I,_23_Lubicz_street,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lubicz Park I, 23 Lubicz street, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Sharp panorama. But composition is not QI: 1/2 is just sky. I suggest cropping. --Augustgeyler 17:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition did improve. It is good now.  Thank you. But resolution is just over the bar and Level of detail remains too low. --Augustgeyler 07:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Асвестохори,_Renault_Kangoo_и_кот_на_Кносу.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat near Renault Kangoo at Knosu Street, Asvestochori, Pylaia-Chortiatis, Central Macedonia, Greece. --Красный 07:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Suboptimal composition; LOD too low to allow for a meaningful crop --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Aciarium Jakubhal 10:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Maybe the description should be improved because this picture is not about the cat, but about the car parked in narrow and leaning street (with cat by the car, of course). With such a story, the photo looks good enough IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_10_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 22:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_M22-7700_Tulip_boat.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - M22-7700 Tulip boat --Юрий Д.К. 15:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: Too zoomed in for a panorama shot, too much space around the boat for a detail shot --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cropped, but QI for me anyway. --Юрий Д.К. 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO.--Ermell 22:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Background is quite messy, but overall good quality. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_Thujas_at_Kurgan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Efremov - 2025 - Thujas at Kurgan --Юрий Д.К. 15:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low regarding the trees in the background; also, composition is too top-heavy for my taste --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree. Not clear where "top-heavy" here, no PC has been performed here. --Юрий Д.К. 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Did not intend top-heaviness in regards of PC, but of overall composition: For my taste, too much sky is shown in the image, relative to the foreground. I personally would crop it from the top to some extent, but I need to underscore that this is rather a matter of taste and perhaps I am being overly critical. Interested in more opinions on this case. --Aciarium 09:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Tombeaux_des_Ducs_de_Bourgogne_-_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - Hall of the tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy : tomb of John the Fearless and Margaret of Bavaria is in the foreground, the tomb of Philip the Bold being behind --Benjism89 11:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose All relevant subjects are cut-off: The tomb in the foreground as well as the ornamental organ facade in the background. --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support You are right, but it's ot easy to have all subjects in the frame here IMO. I want to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 01:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:40._ADAC_Stormarn_Rallye,_Luetjensee_(TR256782).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Specia stage 1 of the 40. ADAC Stormarn Rallye in Lütjensee, Schleswig-Holstein --MB-one 15:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition doesn't work for me, and IMO subject is too small --Aciarium 16:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Red-billed_chough_(Pyrrhocorax_pyrrhocorax),_Algarve.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-billed chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) --Hobbyfotowiki 07:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The bird is too dark and lacks details, and this large blurry rock doesn't decorate the image. --Екатерина Борисова 03:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Uzbek_girl_in_traditional_clothing.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On this photograph you can see an Uzbek girl wearing traditional festive costume. She is covered with a mantle with handmade embroidery. Such mantles are commonly worn by brides on their wedding day. Under the mantle she wears a robe - Uzbek: chopon - made out of light half-silk half-cotton fabric - Uzbek: adras. On her head she wears a festive skullcap - Uzbek: do'ppi.This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 international photographic contest. By User:Elamanovaelvina --Suyash.dwivedi 16:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Great quality. --DimiTalen 16:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's shame there is posterization on top (background). --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Really nice photo. It's above the threshold for QI to me, but agree with Sebring12Hrs that it could be improved with some light/color balance adjustments. --E bailey 18:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes this photo has FP potential IMO ! --Sebring12Hrs 21:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Other QI candidates got declined for weaker levels of posterization/color banding already, whereas in this case it is strongly noticable. --Aciarium 09:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 22:29, 27 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   – Julian Lupyan 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Georges_de_Fressain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Saint-Georges de Fressain --JackyM59 15:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, lack of detail --Lmbuga 16:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit borderline indeed, but ok to me. Let's discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good but just too low on detail. Per Lmbuga. --August (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Borderline case Юрий Д.К. 07:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Borderline case indeed but good. --Gower 21:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 21:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Supermoon,_September_28,_2015_(UTC),_Osaka,_Japan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supermoon, September 28, 2015 (UTC), Osaka, Japan. --Laitche 10:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Junior Jumper 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Moon is a bit too blurred IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 11:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Yes, that’s true. Focus stacking would be the optimal solution, but I wasn’t considering it at the time this photo was taken. --Laitche 12:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded. --Laitche 18:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The last version has more contrast than the previous one, and we can see textures added on the surface, but I don't think it's QI, because those textures seems to be compression artifacts. --Sebring12Hrs 19:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: This is a normal contrast adjustment. While it may appear textured, it does not seem to be caused by compression artifacts. --Laitche 20:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Denoised. --Laitche 18:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs --Milseburg (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the result is not sharp enough. Imho, some previous versions were better than the last one. --Harlock81 23:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm withdrawing my vote because now I don't like it--Lmbuga 20:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Laitche 05:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 23:28, 27 December 2025 (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)
  • ✓ Done @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your constructive comment - have lightened dark tones! --Scotch Mist 08:45, 24 December 2025 (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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Library_of_Palácio_das_Galveias_seen_from_a_window_with_a_reflected_view_of_the_CGD_headquarters_and_a_sitting_man,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Library of Palácio das Galveias seen from a window with a reflected view of the CGD headquarters and a sitting man, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose This is an interesting picture and I like the composition, but I think it's no QI due to the distortions looking through the window --FlocciNivis 18:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can see plenty of reflections but no distortions, could you leave a note? --Julesvernex2 21:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well captured reflections. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Augustgeyler. High artistic value --Gower 21:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but I really don't like this composition with the prominent blurry white bars all over the photo --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan Nowak-Jeziorański square, 2025, Krakow, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plac Jana Nowaka-Jeziorańskiego, 2025, Kraków, Polska --Igor123121 07:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is the level of vignetting acceptable here? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Vignetting is notable. Additionally the level of detail is quite low. On the other hand the image has good light and sharpness. --August (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting--Lmbuga 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Lmbuga: ✓ Done --Igor123121 08:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 19:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Better --Lmbuga 20:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 17:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Kraków Główny station and Bosacka Street buildings, Poland, December 2025.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 16:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Indian_boar_in_Kaziranga_National_Park_March_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hobbyfotowiki 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose Good, but please improve the description and CATs with the action (walking) and male/female (if known) --Tagooty 13:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 19:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Statue_de_Sainte_Véronique.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - 14th-century statue of saint Veronica --Benjism89 07:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Color noise at the bootom, on the grey area. --Sebring12Hrs 12:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The support has a dark color, so noise is stronger than on the subject. But it's background ... and in my opinion, a small amount of noise, hardly visible at 4 MPx, should be accepted in the background, just as we accept that background can be blurred or even burnt. Anyway, I made a new version with stronger noise reduction on the support --Benjism89 14:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise and NR artifacts at the bottom and background, but overall acceptable. --Plozessor 04:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise throughout the image. Artifacts too --Lmbuga 06:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 15:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga – Julian Lupyan 23:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded using a different Noise reduction software. --Benjism89 18:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. --Rjcastillo 03:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 21 Dec → Mon 29 Dec
  • Mon 22 Dec → Tue 30 Dec
  • Tue 23 Dec → Wed 31 Dec
  • Wed 24 Dec → Thu 01 Jan
  • Thu 25 Dec → Fri 02 Jan
  • Fri 26 Dec → Sat 03 Jan
  • Sat 27 Dec → Sun 04 Jan
  • Sun 28 Dec → Mon 05 Jan
  • Mon 29 Dec → Tue 06 Jan