Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 01 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]] 10:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


November 1, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 2025

[edit]

October 30, 2025

[edit]

October 29, 2025

[edit]

October 28, 2025

[edit]

October 27, 2025

[edit]

October 26, 2025

[edit]

October 25, 2025

[edit]

October 24, 2025

[edit]

October 23, 2025

[edit]

October 22, 2025

[edit]

October 21, 2025

[edit]

October 20, 2025

[edit]

October 19, 2025

[edit]

October 18, 2025

[edit]

October 17, 2025

[edit]

October 16, 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:20240614_great_blue_heron_wethersfield_cove_PD200579.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great blue heron,Wethersfield Cove, Wethersfield, CT USA --Pdanese 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image shows strange mosaic of sharp and blurred zones. Look at beak, neck, body, legs. Looks like some sophisticated processing was applied with partial success. --LexKurochkin 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:La_Mer_en_en_Côtes-d'Armor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Côte rocheuse qui avance sur la mer en Côtes-d'Armor --JackyM59 11:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Slightly tilted horizon. --Gower 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    Horizon correction done --JackyM59 16:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's worse, sorry. You have to look at the line between the sky and the sea, to the right of the picture. --Lmbuga 20:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am at a loss about the selected category "Unidentified locations...". OK, it's useful, but not mandatory to set coordinates for a photo, but how can a photographer not know the place where he photographed? -- Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:La_Manche_en_Côtes-d'Armor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vue du chemin des douaniers en Côtes-d'Armor en mai 2024
  • Discussion
    Good IMO, but a bit tilted (see the horizon) --Lmbuga 12:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    *✓ Done. Horizon correction done --JackyM59 16:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's worse, sorry. You have to look at the line between the sky and the sea, to the right of the picture. --Lmbuga 20:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I am at a loss about the selected category "Unidentified locations...". OK, it's useful, but not mandatory to set coordinates for a photo, but how can a photographer not know the place where he photographed? -- Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:TC_24,_Essen_(TCE43375).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (six door) at Techno-Classica 2024, Essen --MB-one 10:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 14:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but noisy and a cluttered background --Jakubhal 14:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-12_Basel_Tattoo_Parade_088.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Transport carriage of the "Feldschlösschen" in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random framing, lot of CAs, not sharp --Jakubhal 07:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal -- George Chernilevsky 05:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-12_Basel_Tattoo_Parade_093.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "Civil Engineering Office of the Canton of Basel-Stadt" at the Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus on the people in the back, not the vehicle. CAs. Distored --Jakubhal 07:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal -- George Chernilevsky 05:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Jardin_et_musée_Massey,_Tarbes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Massey gardens (and museum) . --Florent Abel 04:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but this is the same here. The smartphone creates an overprocessed and not sharp image. --Sebring12Hrs 08:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Silene_uniflora_en_Bretagne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Silene uniflora en Bretagne --JackyM59 18:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Most flowers are not sharp. Also wrong categories. If you are the author of this image, you know for sure what location is depicted here. And you should add the category for species of these flowers. --Екатерина Борисова 02:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the advice. Corrections made. --JackyM59 11:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Fous_de_bassan_sur_l'île_Rouzic_en_Bretagne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fous de bassan sur l'île Rouzic en Bretagne --JackyM59 12:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Chromatic noise. Incorrectly categorised (Category:Morus bassanus?). --Lmbuga 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Categories done --JackyM59 11:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    The lines blue are plastic... --JackyM59 15:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:20250728_wood_duck_keeney_cove_PD202292_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood Duck, overhead closeup. Keeney Cove. Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 10:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only eyes and top of the head are in focus. --Gower 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'd like this to be discussed. It's not going to win any awards & I know there is some subjectivity to QI, but I feel that the pic meets QI crtieria. --Pdanese 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo was taken at f/9, but probably from a very close distance. Focus is on the eyes which are perfectly sharp. To me, it’s a good example of using depth of field in the way described in the COM:IG, and it’s not a problem that the bird’s beak isn’t sharp. Jakubhal 04:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-12_Basel_Tattoo_Parade_061.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambulance in presence. Basel - Basel-Stadt Ambulance Service - RTW - Ambu 05, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 518 CDI, body: Fahrtec. By --Ahmet Düz 05:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 05:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A lot of strong CAs --Jakubhal 05:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal, not a QI. --Sebring12Hrs 14:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)


  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Munitionslager_Visbeck,_Wartungshalle_--_2025_--_9963.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Maintenance and machine hall in the ammunition depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sign is sharp but building is blurry. --Tagooty 05:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
     Comment The sign is the subject and therefore in focus. The building is intentionally blurred so that it is less distracting. Honestly, this is a very common technique. --XRay 07:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. The subject seems to be the plaque, and it is perfectly sharp --Jakubhal 06:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 08:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Deutscher_Boxer_Elmo_vom_Freudenreich,_liegend.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination German Boxer "Elmo vom Freudenreich", born 23/09/2019, brindle with white markings, 19 months old. Lying down in the "down/stay" position in Volkspark Friedrichshain, Berlin. --OleNeitzel 00:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Miscategorised: Category:Canidae could even be a fox or a coyote. No mention of breed. Category:Unidentified dogs? --Lmbuga 05:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I replaced the categories by Category:Boxer (dog) and Category:Dogs in parks in Berlin. I am not really sure about Category:Gebrauchshundewesen, cf. the German page https://gebrauchshundewesen.de/allgemeines/. Such a category looks rather meaningless without further explanation for what specific purpose a dog was trained, such as for hunting or as a police dog. Therefore, I also removed this category. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:D-6-74-121-23_Pfarrkirche.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Michael church in Leuzendorf --Plozessor 03:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 04:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think that in 7 September 2022 version the church wasn't so distorted and looked far more natural. Maybe you can do something with this distortion? Otherwise good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Monument to the Guardian Angel of the Lord, Archcathedral Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist. Przemyśl, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to the Guardian Angel of the Lord, Archcathedral Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist, Przemyśl, Poland --Igor123121 22:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Info Strong white CA's along the contour of the statue. Also horizontal alignment is needed. --Екатерина Борисова 22:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info It is not CA, as CA is never white due to its physical nature. I think it is digital processing artefact and, hense, it should be fixable (if it is not a camera-JPEG). --LexKurochkin 08:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree (per my comment above) --Екатерина Борисова 23:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова and the object appearing at the top edge could be cropped and removed as it only causes distortion. --Lmbuga 23:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above --LexKurochkin 08:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Lmbuga: @LexKurochkin: ✓ Done Igor123121 19:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Better. I don't object. The halo continues, and I would like to hear more opinions.--Lmbuga 20:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Horizons are OK now, but the halo is still here. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Cluny_-_Musée_d'art_et_d'archéologie_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cluny (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Art and Archeology Museum, located inside the former Abbey palace - Part of the frieze of the abbey church narthex --Benjism89 07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma noise, sorry. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 23:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs and lack of detail. --Lmbuga 16:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Cipreskegels_van_een_Cupressus_sempervirens_'Stricta')._02-09-2025._(actm.)_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Gabriel_with_his_cousin_at_Gulbenkian_Park,_Lisbon,_Portugal_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gabriel with his cousin at Gulbenkian Park, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 18:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bark or tree seems to be the main topic. Boys are totally blurred. --Gower 20:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info No, the boys are indeed the main subject. The idea here is to defy the conventional wisdom that the main subject should always be in focus. By blurring the boys I hide their identity while still letting the viewer see what they were doing (like in shadow puppetry) --Julesvernex2 22:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I actually like that a lot. But I sadly don't think it meets the criteria for QI, --Polinova 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info Indeed, I see that the QI guidelines are quite clear: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp". One could argue the rule to be nearsighted, but that's a separate discussion :) --Julesvernex2 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. It is intentional. A guideline is a specific principle or line that is followed in the development, organisation, etc. of something; but it is not a mandatory law. It is not a mandatory protocol, it is a guideline. --Lmbuga 04:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment For everyone, but especially for @Polinova: The problem is knowing how to act if someone does not follow the guidelines. I would do the following: See if they give reasons for breaking them, consider the reasons, and, if I find them convincing, promote them. Nothing changes.--Lmbuga 06:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info About 15 years ago, I was asked at QIC to locate an image that I nominated. I did not do so (I didn't even mention the country), and it was promoted. The image was File:Obesidade.jpg. I should not have located it for obvious reasons (see the picture).--Lmbuga 06:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:1984_Nissan_Prairie_JW-G.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1984 Nissan Prairie JW-G --TTTNIS 11:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Info A bit too soft. --Lvova 15:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know whether Lvova meant to decline, but the image will be declined today if there is no response to the comment. I think this is fine, so I'm sending it to CR for discussion.--Peulle 07:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Peulle, it WOULD NOT be declined, it would be unassessed and could be nominated again. But because of your action - no, it is not QI imho, so now I'm oppose (and you supported just to discuss? oh). --Lvova 09:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Hmmmm... Borderline case to me. I see slight DoF problem - some 0,3-0,4m of the car near its backside is not really sharp. The second problem is too deep shadows below the car, so deep that wheels look melted in shadows. By the way, the photo shows remarkably low level of noise for given ISO and lighting conditions. --LexKurochkin 09:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but Panthera leo is soft a bit and not very detailed. --Gower 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Oost-Gelre-Lichtenvoorde,_de_Sint-Bonifatiuskerk_GM1586-LT23_IMG_6601_2025-04-06_10.42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lichtenvoorde-NL, church: the Sint-Bonifatiuskerk --Michielverbeek 06:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 06:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see two problems here: verticals are slightly leaning CCW (fixable) and the upper part of the church is out of focus (unfixable). Sorry. --LexKurochkin 06:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Building_Sidi_Rabat_Morocco_Oct25_A7CR_08100.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New residential building in Sidi R'bat, Souss-Massa, Morocco --Tagooty 06:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Left part is hanging a bit to the right --Michielverbeek 06:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 06:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see two contradicting opinions here, so I have put it to discussion. --LexKurochkin 06:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Michielverbeek: The left-most wall is in fact leaning to the right. All other walls are vertical. --Tagooty 07:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Tagooty: That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Btw, I think it is easy to correct --Michielverbeek 06:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
      • @Michielverbeek: What I mean is that the left wall is leaning in reality, hence it does not need PC. --Tagooty 06:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I see, that all the verticals are vertical and, yes, one wall is just not vertical in reality. The building is slightly soft, but proper level of detail is achieved. --LexKurochkin 07:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 06:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Michielverbeek 18:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_Dernekamp,_Feldweg_--_2025_--_0164.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dirt road in the Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurry throughout, sorry --Tagooty 07:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I have improved the sharpness and think that the photo is good enough for QI (even taking the resolution into account). --XRay 07:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Info Sorry but it does not appear better to me. IMO, for this view, a drone is not required, a similar view of much higher quality could be obtained by a handheld camera. --Tagooty 06:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and there are blown out areas. --Lmbuga 06:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I can understand the comment about blurriness, as the camera on a mini drone like this is not comparable to an SLR. But where are the blown-out areas? --XRay 07:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I contribute here by trying to be honest and welcoming, but I am not a professional, nor perhaps even an advanced amateur. However, the path at the bottom of the photo and everything below it lacks adequate detail, in my opinion, blurry. Wouldn't you agree?--Lmbuga 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Blown out areas: Considering only the most obvious areas, look at the tree on the right and notice that to its right there is a yellow strip where there is no data in everything. Sorry. IMHO. --Lmbuga 14:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would have been better to say ‘overexposed areas’ (there are many of those).--Lmbuga 14:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I can't find overexposed areas. The histogram is OK. But I reduced the midtone lights. BTW: IMO it's still sharp enough with respect to the resolution. --XRay 14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Francis_of_Assisi_Church._2_Franciszkańska_street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Francis of Assisi Church, 2 Franciszkańska street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 13:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 17:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Gower: , you broke this promotion without sending it to CR. --Lvova 16:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Info Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-06_UEFA_Women_EM_BS_011.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination These XXL soccer balls were found everywhere, in select corners of the city. Here's an example, in front of the Spielzeug Welten Museum Basel. By --Ahmet Düz 04:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment chromatic aberrations --Jakubhal 05:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support CA are negligible IMO --MB-one 13:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Jakubhal 11:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted and it needs perspective correction--Lmbuga 06:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Rakowice_Cemetery,_tomb_of_Boguszowie_family,_26_Rakowicka_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Cmentarz Rakowicki --Igor123121 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Dust spot. See note. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 12:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done in 8 days. --Peulle 12:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 18:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support So go to CR, because Peulle, add a "decline vote" --Sebring12Hrs 11:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I didn't notice it, but the sky is posterized. --Sebring12Hrs 16:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 16:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_chicory_flower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cichorium intybus in Yefremov --Юрий Д.К. 13:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Petals burned out, lacking detail. --Gower 17:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info Not burned out, natural colors of the flower at bright sunlight. I don't understand which details do you want to see on this simple flower. --Юрий Д.К. 17:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I understand, but clipping on petals is significant and it can be reduced in postprocessing. --Gower 17:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I like it, but too little and per Gower--Lmbuga 14:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Осенние_листья_в_Санкт-Петербурге_02.jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose In my opinion, the photo lacks detail. This is partly due to the use of a smartphone, which tends to produce something of a posterization effect. Unfortunately, the technical limitations of a smartphone quickly become apparent when it comes to fine details. --XRay 08:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The scene is beautiful, but something is missing: detail, naturalness..., sorry I can't say exactly what it is. That happens to me all the time. There are many photos that I do not upload for that reason. Now, the photo is beautiful, and if you manage to alter it a little to make it more artistic, you could sell it for a high price.--Lmbuga 07:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 08:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:El_Kbob_Mosque.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination El Kbob Mosque is a mosque for worship and educational purposesThis is a photo of the protected monument identified by the ID 82-86 in Tunisia.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Bill.pix 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 21:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but not QI IMO: CAs (door), noise (or something else, sky), building cropped on the right side. The sky seems subexposed and not natural. Overprocesed IMO --Lmbuga 22:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Really tight crop, but I think, exposure is ok for the sunlit white parts of the building. Some small remains of CA exist, but not disturbing in A4 size. --Smial 12:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise in the sky and cropped out right part of building. --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambrussum_-_Pont.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum_-_Pont--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Categories missing, geo location missing, a lot of dark shadows. Please try to fix it. --XRay 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. You added randomly categories, most of the red links. --XRay 08:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry that the photo ended up in the discussion. I made a mistake with the comment. --XRay 08:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support image and categories are ok now IMO. --MB-one 08:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Ambrussum_-_Remparts_Celtes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum - Remparts Celtes--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please add the categories first. --XRay 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Again: No. Please do not add categories randomly. Have a look to COM:CAT. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Please have a look to the categories. They are not fixed. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Category:Ambrussum" is ok, but the others are too broad. I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Oeufs_d'encornets_sur_une_plage_d'Hardelot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oeufs d'encornets sur une plage d'Hardelot --JackyM59 17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good, but without categories--Lmbuga 18:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Categories were added by the author. --Lvova 12:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Unidentified subject: Category:Céphalopodes. Études générales is a lie false. I hope to hear from the user, but I think this is serious. The other category is Category:Mollusca. Very insufficient. Credible?--Lmbuga 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Correction to the previous comment caused by poor English--Lmbuga 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Camelus_bactrianus_skull_in_Jardim_Zoológico_de_Curitiba.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Camelus bactrianus skull in Jardim Zoológico de Curitiba --Wilfredor 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice but background is weird, partially removed, partially not, somewhere with geometric black (bat-like?) shapes. --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noisy and overporcessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version --Wilfredor 13:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's way better now. Only one spot to correct, I added imagenote. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Gower and Sebring12Hrs: Please take a look te new version. Thanks --Wilfredor 18:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support now it is ok --Gower 20:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too blurred to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Gower 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:The_three_temples_of_Sbeitla_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The three temples of Sbeitla and the arch of Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius in a landscape --IssamBarhoumi 16:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good, but small. --Lvova 15:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    dear Lvova I improved the file size and light have a lok please --IssamBarhoumi 20:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Thank you. Good quality. --Lvova 10:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @IssamBarhoumi we need EV here, like in first or second. Too dark. --PetarM 09:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    dear PetarM I reverted it to the second one ... I thought that with this kind of darkness there will be good focus on the temples but now it is more illuminated hve a look please --IssamBarhoumi 15:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    @PetarM I think the revertedfile was hazy although it has better light so I reedit everything to have a new file wit better light and better sharpness have look please --IssamBarhoumi 20:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 24 Oct → Sat 01 Nov
  • Sat 25 Oct → Sun 02 Nov
  • Sun 26 Oct → Mon 03 Nov
  • Mon 27 Oct → Tue 04 Nov
  • Tue 28 Oct → Wed 05 Nov
  • Wed 29 Oct → Thu 06 Nov
  • Thu 30 Oct → Fri 07 Nov
  • Fri 31 Oct → Sat 08 Nov
  • Sat 01 Nov → Sun 09 Nov