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 October 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 October 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 October 26 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]] 12:05, 26 October 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
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).


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]

October 15, 2025

[edit]

October 14, 2025

[edit]

October 12, 2025

[edit]

October 11, 2025

[edit]

October 9, 2025

[edit]

October 4, 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:1011_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (1) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:1012_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (2) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:1013_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (3) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:1015_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (4) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Kalyan_Minaret_in_Bukhara.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kalyan Minaret in Bukhara. -- 26D 08:08, 25 October (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 18:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad, but there's a halo along the contour of the minaret, and the bottom part of image is blurry. --Екатерина Борисова 00:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Minorai_kalonning_tepa_qismi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The upper part of the Kalyan Minaret. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 00:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but that sky color doesn't look real, it needs a WB rework --Poco a poco 14:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Altendorf_Buttenheim_Eisenbahn_Baustelle_Luftbild-20250831-RM-111536.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction site of the Nuremberg-Ebensfeld high-speed rail line in Buttenheim, aerial view --Ermell 05:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, gouache effect. --Lvova 12:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ermell 19:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I agree with Lvova. All the man-made elements are generally well defined, but the natural elements and the ground present the gouache effect reported by Lvova. --Harlock81 09:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:27, 26 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 Thanks --Wilfredor 18:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Strullendorf_Bahnhof_Baustelle_Luftbild-20250831-RM-115224.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strullendorf station during the expansion of the Nuremberg-Erfurt high-speed rail line. View looking south. --Ermell 06:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too high contrast (blacks clipped), AC to fix (lower part). --Gower 21:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blacks are significantly clipped. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implicite oppose. --Harlock81 09:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:12, 26 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia_Asian_Month_Banner_(awa).svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wikipedia Asian Month Banner for Awadhi --Suyash.dwivedi 16:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Resolution under 2 MP, sorry. --Gower 06:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • This is a SVG file, which are infinitely scalable; MP is not relevant here. That being said, I'm unsure how I feel about an image being submitted for QI when the key graphic (File:Wikipedia Asian Month Logo.svg) is QI already. --ReneeWrites 21:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Farm_tractor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A tractor in Nigeria. By user:Sasu photography. --Lvova 19:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Dust spot in the sky, underexposed, and noisy. And why ISO 400 in bright daylight? --Plozessor 02:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco.... --Sebring12Hrs 11:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my initial comment which has not been addressed. --Plozessor 03:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Владимир_2025,_Княгинин_монастырь,_Успенский_собор_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Knyaginin Monastery, Vladimir --Vsatinet 19:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Crushed blacks, clipped whites --Gower 06:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    Actually not, details in shadows and highlights are present. Although the ability to see them, of course, depends on the capabilities of the output device (monitor settings and characteristics, etc.). Okay, let's consider the option with lower contrast in the shadows (I don't see any issues in the highlights, anyway). --Vsatinet 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture but whites and blacks still clipped and it's not matter of monitor, it can by tested objectively by histogram. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 02:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't see significant clipping, there are some details in the shadows, but probably it wouldn't hurt to brighten the shadows a bit. Also, the overall quality is borderline. It was taken at ISO 400 with 1/400s, should probably have used lower ISO with longer exposure. And I'm not sure about the perspective - the building seems straight but the background (like the radio tower) is not. --Plozessor 05:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support looks ok to me.--Ermell 09:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 09:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Эрмитаж_после_реставрации_06.jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Not bad, but I expect truly parallel PC in that case. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Why do you need "truly parallels" here and don't need them there, for example? There's a difference between an obvious perspective view and a frontal shot taken crookedly, so I don't understand your logic. --Екатерина Борисова 00:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Watercock_in_Bhigwan_August_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gallicrex cinerea in Bhigwan, Maharashtra, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice, but bright and low areas partially clipped. Could you fix it? --Gower 07:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Gower: I have tried to fix it and uploaded a new version, thank you. -- Tisha Mukherjee 06:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Blacks are still clipped partially, only bright background is darker --Gower 15:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The posture of the bird well reproduces the step. The bird is quite well taken, many details are visible. Few very dark areas are present, mainly the gorge and the belly. The water in the background is bright, but not disturbing. Over the bar for me. --Harlock81 12:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 09:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Jirafa_Masai_(Giraffa_camelopardalis_tippelskirchi),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_76.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Masai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi), Tarangire National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 20:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is unacceptable -- Ввласенко 15:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Bright, but not blown white --George Chernilevsky 15:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info  Neutral The sky is good enough to me, but I see motion blur on the ear --LexKurochkin 10:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 11:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 09:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Jirafa_Masai_(Giraffa_camelopardalis_tippelskirchi),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_77.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Masai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi), Tarangire National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 20:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 21:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is unacceptable-- Ввласенко 15:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Bright, but not blown white --George Chernilevsky 15:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per George Chernilevsky --LexKurochkin 10:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 11:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Gower 17:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 17:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Салоники,_кошка_на_28_Октября.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat at 28 Oktovirou Street, Thessaloniki, Greece. --Красный 03:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It isn't bad, but cat should take up most of the frame aera. Cropping in that case doesn't help, sorry. --Gower 07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    I can't agree with this. It is possible to show not only a cat, but a cat in some surroundings, I don't see this exact framing as a poblem. --Красный 15:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Gower. Composition is flawed. --E bailey 16:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I think it's worth making some horizontal crop, but in general, such a composition has a right to exist. I see no reason to vote against it. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Екатерина, I would suggest a square crop. --Plozessor 03:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 09:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 09:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:University_of_Adelaide_main_campus_on_16_October_2025_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Elder Conservatorium, Adelaide on 16 October 2025. By --Pangalau 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lower part too blurry, sorry. --Gower 21:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry and needs perspective correction --LexKurochkin 11:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per LexKurochkin. According to EXIF data it was taken in portrait mode with intentionally low DoF. --Plozessor 03:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Кирочная_22_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Damaged balcony in Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good, but PC needed. It is not straight, parallel. Look at the facade on the right. --Gower 15:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's a view from the ground to the balcony on 5th floor of this building. Balconies always look like this if you don't use a copter for shooting. --Екатерина Борисова 00:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, PC is needed. Not a low-angle shot. --Sebring12Hrs 10:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    I made some PC to make the picture look neater (see the first version), but I don't think it's necessary to pretend that I can fly at the fifth floor level. Yes, this is a picture from the ground, and balconies always looks like this from there. Other opinions on this are interesting, as this is a common problem. --Екатерина Борисова 01:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    I understand, but it makes non sense to me to see the right leaning more than the left side on your picture. --Sebring12Hrs 10:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Look at the general appearance of the building in the category, and then you will understand why it looks like this. This is not to argue, but just for information. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sure you cannot "fly at the fifth floor level", but now it looks like you were flying at the fourth floor level. Verticals are already almost straight, so why not skew it a little bit more to have them completely straight? It would look much better IMO. --Plozessor 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nothing was corrected. --Gower 17:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:View_of_the_fortified_city_of_Carcassonne_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the fortified city of Carcassonne, Aude, France. --Tournasol7 13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A bit blurred at left, and not completely in focus. Other opinions ? --Sebring12Hrs 14:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 15:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 10:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF problems --LexKurochkin 11:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left third is oof. --Plozessor 03:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:20250706_Transcendiendo_la_imposición_del_cuerpo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The restored sculpture Transcendiendo la imposición del cuerpo in Plaza Luis de León Huerta, Icod de los Vinos, Tenerifer, Spain --FlocciNivis 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The inscription is unsharp. --Екатерина Борисова 22:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Edited Екатерина Борисова vote to "oppose". LexKurochkin 10:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The statue is sharp, and, I think, the description below is not the subject of this photo. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 09:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 11:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Wondering how the inscription seems more blurry than the concrete around it, but anyway - the subject is the statue and that is very good. --Plozessor 03:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_facade_of_the_House_on_the_Embankment_(close-up).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - facade of the House on the Embankment (close-up) --Юрий Д.К. 08:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • PC too strong. Walls aren't fully vertical but tend to tilt inwards --Gower 17:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    No PC has been performed there. Sending to CR. --Юрий Д.К. 19:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "Театр Эстрады" sign (which I consider an important part) and some other facade surfaces like upper columns, upper balconies, etc. are blown out (white without details). And, yes, I know this building, on this photo it looks unnatural to me. Sorry. -- LexKurochkin 11:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's a white stripe (accidental use of eraser tool?) at the left edge, at the height of the top of the building. Perspective is somehow strange, some walls are absolutely vertical, some are leaning out. Blue is too intense (it seems as if saturation of blue tones was increased during raw conversion with a too low color temperature). Also there is CA or purple halos in the upper area. --Plozessor 03:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will delete it and re-upload. Юрий Д.К. 07:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Plozessor 03:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Schöngelber Klumpfuß (Calonarius splendens, Syn.- Cortinarius splendens) Bruderwald-20251017-RM-170249.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified mushroom (Russula) in the Bruderwald forest in Bamberg. Focus stack of 10 images. --Ermell 06:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporary oppose. Wrong identification. This is even not Russula, but rather Cortinariaceae, because stem is fibrous. Possible Calonarius splendens. --George Chernilevsky 18:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: , fungi now defined. Update info, please -- George Chernilevsky 16:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support All OK now, nice quality -- George Chernilevsky 20:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 20:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_Tilia_tree.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Efremov - 2025 - Tilia tree --Юрий Д.К. 08:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • chromatic aberration and burned whites to fix --Gower 13:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    Will be fixed --Юрий Д.К. 05:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. --Юрий Д.К. 17:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
    Sending to CR, let's hear what others think --Юрий Д.К. 05:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    Совершенно зря, это использование CR не по назначению. Gower, как ему объясняли, использовал Comment. Если изображение уходило без ответа, его правильнее было бы номинировать повторно. Lvova 23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    Я просто подумал, что так с бОльшей вероятностью укажут на ошибки. Юрий Д.К. 08:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Коллеги, здесь не принято обсуждать фотографии на языке, которого многие не понимают. Совет получить можно, хоть CR, действительно, не для этого. LexKurochkin 10:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Тут это регулярно делают - раз. Обсуждается не фотография, а порядок действий - два. Lvova 12:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It is not CA, it is fringing rather strong on upper twigs and foliage. --LexKurochkin 10:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Hard/impossible to fix. Юрий Д.К. 14:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 10:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Bytom_Rozbark_MTW_100.110_778_2021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MTW 100.110 series train, nr 778 (PKP Energetyka SA) in Bytom. --Gower 20:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It's tilted, the shadows are too dark and it's not sharp enough for QI. --JoachimKohler-HB 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • tilt is intentional because of leaning train on tracks --Gower 15:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The houses are leaning.--Peulle 11:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upper part of the train's front is out of focus. And perspective is inconsistent. You can use the train as reference (and make its verticals vertical), or you can use the houses in the background as reference, but none of these two is currently applied. --Plozessor 03:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Thessaloniki_during_CEEM_2025_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pedestrian zone in Thessaloniki. I prefer not to crop to show this empty sunny area. --Lvova 09:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • With that crop, I'll have to vote  Oppose. Send to CR, if you change your mind. --MB-one 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm sending to CR without changing my mind. --Lvova 16:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know how Lvova do it with her smartphone, but everything is sharp here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Tends to suggest that smartphones are generally less good than cameras. The quality of the One Plus 13 is very impressive to me. Good job. --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand the intended purpose, but the composition of the image is unbalanced. Furthermore, there is no meaningful description of the image, and the image sharpness is only mediocre. --Smial 11:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial --Lmbuga 15:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition with too much pavement. I'd crop it below the yellow bike lane marking. Sharpness is borderline, but parts (for example, the water surface) are overprocessed. --Plozessor 03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Параклис_во_Тресонче_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Petka Church in the village Tresonče. By User:Petrovskyz --Lvova 07:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The wall of the house is blurred at right, and the background is blurres too, look at the trees. --Sebring12Hrs 11:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not too bothered about the background, but the house not being sharp is a problem, since it's the subject.--Peulle 11:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Horrible bokeh, but sharpness is good enough (A4 print size criterion). --Smial 11:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs--Lmbuga 15:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect, but over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_рудбекия_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rudbeckia laciniata in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 22:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too messy composition for me, two species together almost mixed. Flowers aren't very detailed. --Gower 06:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    "two species together" as an argument; I cannot read it, stop it. --Lvova 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    Guidelines: „Foreground and background objects should not be distracting” --Gower 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is good to me here. And the sharpness acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 06:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness rather below the bar, overexposed areas. And Gower's argument is valid, the description should mention both species --Poco a poco 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Gower's argument was about something else, but I've improved the description as far as you're not satisfied with categories only. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support Very nice composition, good lighting, acceptabel sharpness, and now also good image description ;-) --Smial 11:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 10:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Parts of the flowers are overexposed. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Muzeum_Książat_Czartoryjskich,_Ulica_Pijarska_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Muzeum Książat Czartoryjskich, Ulica Pijarska --Igor123121 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think you downscale your images to hide overprocessing artifacts, but it is not the good method to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done
  •  Support new version is improved. Good quality. --E bailey 04:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Removing support. On 2nd look, I see the issues described by Sebring12Hrs. --E bailey 18:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks details at right. --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs and edge artifacts IMO--Lmbuga 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Arco_Conmemorativo,_Plaza_Alonso_de_Ojeda_MG_491720250913.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial Arch, Alonso de Ojeda Square. --Rjcastillo 02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA sorry --Cvmontuy 04:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC))
  • ✓ Done new version. --Rjcastillo 22:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Wilfredor 23:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 18 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
  • Sun 19 Oct → Mon 27 Oct
  • Mon 20 Oct → Tue 28 Oct
  • Tue 21 Oct → Wed 29 Oct
  • Wed 22 Oct → Thu 30 Oct
  • Thu 23 Oct → Fri 31 Oct
  • Fri 24 Oct → Sat 01 Nov
  • Sat 25 Oct → Sun 02 Nov
  • Sun 26 Oct → Mon 03 Nov