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 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.

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 11 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]] 00:20, 11 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 11, 2025

[edit]

December 10, 2025

[edit]

December 9, 2025

[edit]

December 8, 2025

[edit]

December 7, 2025

[edit]

December 6, 2025

[edit]

December 5, 2025

[edit]

December 4, 2025

[edit]

December 3, 2025

[edit]

December 2, 2025

[edit]

December 1, 2025

[edit]

November 30, 2025

[edit]

November 29, 2025

[edit]

November 28, 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:Chorzow_St_Hedwig_church_vestibule_2022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Hedwig of Silesia Church in Chorzów, the vestibule. --Gower 15:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 17:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 14:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Hannover_0083.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Market Church of Hanover. By User:T meltzer --Augustgeyler 00:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough to me. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 01:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Sharpness seams OK to me. --Augustgeyler 14:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 14:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Hohe_Strasse_19_in_Quedlinburg_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Hohe Straße 19 in Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The windows on each floor are turned at a different angle, and so is the inscription. It looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good voting practices #6 (and yes, I'd like to hear other opinions). --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe the house has these imperfections, which is separate from photo quality. Good quality for me. Julian Lupyan 22:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dormition_Cathedral,_Kharkiv_2021_-_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell-tower of the Dormition Cathedral at twilight, Kharkiv, Ukraine. By User:Sergiy BobokNickK 23:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 01:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 14:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Façade_of_Key_West_Shipwreck_Museum_among_Palm_Fronds.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Façade of Key West Shipwreck Museum among palm fronds --Julian Lupyan 18:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poorly composed. Needs wider perspective. --E bailey 04:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment As this composition was intentional, and I found it to be appealing, I would appreciate other opinions to understand what makes this composition poor. Please discuss. --Julian Lupyan 05:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 14:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Auto_2024,_Zurich_(PANA0274).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Presentation at Media Stage of Auto Zürich 2024 --MB-one 12:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Cropping: Too much space at the top, feet cut off --Aciarium 17:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped in for a more balanced composition. --MB-one 11:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed crop --MB-one 15:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 14:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy,_muszla_koncertowa_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 4 --Jacek Halicki 07:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad lighting; most of the scene is in (relatively hard) shadow. --Aciarium 13:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support May be a bit leaning at left, but well exposed, even in this big shadow. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 14:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Terrain_de_pétanque_d'Auberchicourt_(97469).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Terrain de pétanque d'Auberchicourt--JackyM59 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I suggest cloning out that lonely branch from the right --Gower 13:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done 16:9 cropping to remove the branch at the top right --JackyM59 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 22:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part is leaning out. Looks like as if it needs to be rotated cw and afterwards some minor PC. --Augustgeyler 01:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Fomitopsis_betulina_Bytom_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fomitopsis betulina, Bytom --Gower 19:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks good as thumbnail, but very blurry in full size. --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Somewhat low DOF, but good enough in A4 size print. --Smial 12:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Литохоро,_церковь_Святого_Николая,_колокольня_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belltower of Saint Nicholas church in Litochoro, Central Macedonia, Greece. --Красный 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Substandard composition, no context for the tower / no size and position references to the church it is claimed it belongs to. --Grand-Duc 04:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, but this photo appears very good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt and/or perspective overcorrected, probably downscaled. --Smial 12:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong in my eyes.--Ermell 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Peter_cathedral_in_Osnabrueck_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Peter cathedral in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 02:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that it is QI. In my opinion, it is a photo that has been degraded by excessive perspective correction. I don't like it.--Lmbuga 03:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, I'm sorry, but I find the tower looks too big-headed due to excessive perspective correction. --Lmbuga 05:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Is it OK, to show these peoples faces? --Augustgeyler 11:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Did these people agree being photographed? --Augustgeyler 01:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In Spain, this photograph complies with the law. Lmbuga --Lmbuga 10:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • But this is Poland. And there people need to be asked. --Augustgeyler 18:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  no response --Augustgeyler 00:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The intention is to photograph a park, not people. But may be their faces should be blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In Poland, Article 81 of the Copyright Act requires consent for publishing the image of any identifiable person. The exception for “a person being an incidental part of a larger public scene” applies only when the person is truly marginal and not a meaningful element of the composition. In this drone photo, the two people in the foreground are clearly identifiable and are clear part of the composition. They are not an incidental detail. Under Polish law, this requires explicit consent, and Commons normally expects such consent to be documented. Therefore, without a documented permission, this photograph cannot be considered legally safe for Commons, and from a QI perspective the situation is not compatible with promotion.--Augustgeyler 10:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 5 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Significant distortion and lack of sharpness in the lower third --Aciarium 16:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Toco_piquinegro_(Lophoceros_nasutus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination African grey hornbill (Lophoceros nasutus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 07:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Not sharp enough. --Harlock81 14:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's an awkward argument in this case. In that cat there are 2 images, one FP and another QI. QI is definitely not limited to an amount of images like it's for valued images or partially featured pictures. --Poco a poco 20:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • There is not an intention to say that only few images can be QI. The bird is quite soft also when the picture is displayed in a medium size, and the composition - with the branch partially covering the bird - is not so good to overtake this flaw, sorry. --Harlock81 19:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This should not be in CR without a prior vote. Anyway, this bird has very little detail. Therefore, I oppose it. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Collective_Garden_of_SK_Plant_No._2_-_Road_to_Zapadnaya_Zvezda_village_-_Sept_2025_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Collective Garden of SK Plant No. 2 - Road to Zapadnaya Zvezda village --Юрий Д.К. 19:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment A bit too bright and top-right branches have purple fringes. --Екатерина Борисова 01:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… I will try to fix --Юрий Д.К. 18:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This should not be here without a prior vote. That said, the fringes in the tree tops are very minor indeed and the image looks good. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Львівська_Ратуша.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bird's-eye view of the Lviv Town Hall building and the surrounding old town, Lviv, Ukraine. By User:Ryzhkov OleksandrNickK 23:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Wobbanight 03:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are supposed to support if you disagree with an opposing vote and send an image to CR, not just leave a comment! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Good quality, and great lighting and comp. --Wobbanight 20:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, but distortion is too disturbing and have to be fixed. --Milseburg 13:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Isaac_C._Lewis_Cottage_q.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Isaac C. Lewis Cottage in Branford, CT. --Wobbanight 22:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you provide the PC? --Wobbanight 23:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Response to ‘Can you provide the PC?’ No, I already did it in a photo and it took me an hour. Take responsibility. --Lmbuga 01:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Lmbuga 00:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Haphazard low-angle shot: distracting twigs and wall. Also substandard technical quality (noise!) --Grand-Duc 04:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per grand-duc. --Smial 12:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition, perspective, exposure, sharpness, noise, disturbing foreground. --Plozessor 04:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Isaac_C._Lewis_Cottage_a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Isaac C. Lewis Cottage in Branford, CT. --Wobbanight 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tight crop and PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you provide the PC? --Wobbanight 23:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Lmbuga 00:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Response to ‘Can you provide the PC?’ No, I already did it in a photo and it took me an hour. Take responsibility. --Lmbuga 01:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The framing is too tight. Too much noise, lack of sharpness. --Grand-Duc 04:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Isaac_C._Lewis_Cottage_h.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Isaac C. Lewis Cottage in Branford, CT. --Wobbanight 22:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tight crop and PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Lmbuga 00:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please leave at least a comment if you send something to CR (as the nominator or the author). Otherwise, a vote is expected that contradicts the previous vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 18:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Водопад_на_Емиричка_Река.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 07:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Prechistenskaya_Embankment.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - Coleus - Prechistenskaya Embankment --Юрий Д.К. 11:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --A S M Jobaer 14:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Юрий Д.К. 14:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Main parts are in focus and sharp. Very harsh light, but QI. --Augustgeyler 11:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 04:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Augustgeyler. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Waterfront_Viewpoint_Sign_at_Pike_Place_Market,_Seattle,_Washington,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waterfront viewpoint sign at Pike Place Market, Seattle --Julian Lupyan 20:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, composition --Aciarium 14:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. I believe the exposure is true to life, and if it were to be raised, the subject (the neon sign) would not be portrayed well. An elaborated critique for composition would be appreciated. Please discuss. --Julian Lupyan 22:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition and exposure exactly as it is. It catches the atmosphere of the place. --Plozessor 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Blown_Glass_for_sale_in_Pike_Place_Market,_Seattle,_Washington,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blown glass for sale in Pike Place Market, Seattle --Julian Lupyan 20:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, could be a bit sharper --Aciarium 14:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Since the interior of the market is quite dim, I do not believe I should raise exposure to a level where the windows are blown out. Subject is already masked and brightened, and I feel anything further would be unrealistic. The image is already sharpened, though I can sharpen more if this is preferred. Please discuss. --Julian Lupyan 22:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes it could be exposed a bit more, but still in range to show the objects in that natural lighting situation with mixed light from the evening outside and the warm inner light. --Augustgeyler 11:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective which is not corrected at right is disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs 12:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for the advice. Please allow me some time to slightly increase exposure and correct the perspective today. --Julian Lupyan 17:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Sebring12Hrs: @Aciarium: -- Julian Lupyan 19:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, and I want to put up with photos of building interiors, which we see too little and which are difficult to take. --Sebring12Hrs 00:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

File:通海文庙-文明坊_2025-08-12_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Wenming Archway, Tonghai Confucian Temple, Yunnan, China. --Kcx36 11:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment needs perspective correction, otherwise good imo --FlocciNivis 11:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @FlocciNivis: Taken from a lower angle (see this photo). I think perspective correction would make it look unnatural. --Kcx36 12:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Kcx36: I agree with you, PC would make it feel unnatural. --Wobbanight 15:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. I tried PC on this image and it didn't look unnatural afterwards --FlocciNivis 15:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (I think the previous discussion is over and that we can now express our opinions respectfully.) Per User:FlocciNivis. --Lmbuga 16:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me now --FlocciNivis 14:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 18:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Каган,_церковь_Святого_Николая,_кошка_во_дворе.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat in a yard of Saint Nicholas church. Kagan, Bukhara Region, Uzbekistan. --Красный 04:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Poor old creature. --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough IMO, and too much space around the subject --Aciarium 13:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC
  •  Oppose I agree. I believe there is too much noise as well. --Julian Lupyan 06:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not really sharp, noisy, no composition. Why f/16 and ISO5000 in such a situation? --Smial 13:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Paloma_en_el_Palacio_de_Cristal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pigeon on the steps of the Palacio de Cristal del Retiro, Madrid, Spain.By User:Nerve net --Earth605 11:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 12:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown background --Charlesjsharp 18:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that background is blown out but not bird which very sharp and in-focus here. Юрий Д.К. 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly  Overexposed and the blown out background is too dominant. --Augustgeyler 18:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_a_zouave_(Algiers).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of a zouave in St. Eugene Cemetery, Algiers --Bgag 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC
  •  Oppose The statue and its pedestal are blown out and lack details. Although it can be fixed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Overexposed . --Augustgeyler 18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I have uploaded a new version. --Bgag 05:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral  Thank you. OK now. Still a bit low on detail. --Augustgeyler 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Acceptable now IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, unrealistic textures and borderline sharpness regarding the camera used. --Sebring12Hrs 18:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 04:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:TR.AY.Aydin_2011-10-03_19_speed.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination picture taken in Aydin, Turkey. By User:Roy Egloff --Augustgeyler 01:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much motion blur --Aciarium 17:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support How much is recommended? --Ermell 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ermell: Motion blur in the background is (usually) no issue at all, especially when the subject is sharp enough. However, most of the bike and most of the rider are blurry, and this seems accidental, rather than being an intentionally used stylistic device. Also,  Overexposed . --Aciarium 09:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing in focus here. --Sebring12Hrs 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Aciarium - nothing sharp, and the level of blur is varying and random. Besides, "picture taken in Aydin, Turkey" is not an adequate description. --Plozessor 04:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --[[[User:Plozessor|Plozessor]] 04:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Eugene_Cemetery_(Algiers)_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Military square of St. Eugene Cemetery, Algiers --Bgag 03:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the image has  Level of detail too low and some highlights are blown out. --Augustgeyler 02:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 00:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Mairie_de_Monchecourt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mairie de Monchecourt --JackyM59 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 13:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but unfortunately the image is lacking detail and texture. --Augustgeyler 02:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit borderline, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 00:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 00:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Pysocice_street,_view_to_W,_Kościelniki,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pysocice street, view to W, Kościelniki, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 21:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Image is  Overexposed . Fixable? --Augustgeyler 01:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Augustgeyler 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Overexposed ??? Euhh not to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed slightly overexposed. --Plozessor 19:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Though I do like the comp, The image is a bit overexposed. --Wobbanight 12:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support image only slightly overexposed but the compo is very good. Юрий Д.К. 17:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:DAP_(Diammonium_Phosphate)_Granules_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DAP (Diammonium Phosphate) Granules --Suyash.dwivedi 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--瑞丽江的河水 22:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo needs to be categorised. The category you have does not work and is not sufficient. --Lmbuga 22:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
(I assure you that I would love to be User:Augustgeyler, but, for the moment, no God has granted me that privilege. Unfortunately for me, I am still User:Lmbuga, Clin). Thank you for the additional information however, despite the F8, the depth of field seems insufficient for QI being a studio photograph: DoF and detail. The background is uneven and the white balance appears poor. --Lmbuga 00:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO, to achieve QI for a completely still and staged product shot, the entire subject should be in sharp focus. May require higher f-stop. Agree with Lmbuga. --E bailey 17:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok in my eyes.--Ermell 20:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga, also backfocus IMO -- George Chernilevsky 10:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --George Chernilevsky 10:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Palais_des_Ducs_et_des_États_de_Bourgogne_-_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Palace of the Dukes and Estates of Burgundy - Central courtyard, with the King's lodgings and Philip the Good tower in the background --Benjism89 07:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Sorry but I don't like those blurred license plates. Other opinion ? --Sebring12Hrs 10:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Assuming Sebring12Hrs is opposing so I can take this to CR --Benjism89 07:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes I should have decline ;) --Sebring12Hrs 19:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A good image. I have nothing against blurring licence plates. But in this case the masking is done very inaccurately and should be improved. --Augustgeyler 22:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
    I don't have nothing against blurring licence plate too, but it should done better. --Sebring12Hrs 02:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, let me till Monday to fix this :) --Benji 11:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Sebring12Hrs and Augustgeyler: New version uploaded with a more precise blurring. (and sorry Sebring12Hrs, I thought you opposed the principle of blurring plates, not the fact that I had done it quite quickly) --Benjism89 17:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I'm not convinced. Could you try the process as you use for faces ? It would be far away better. --Sebring12Hrs 17:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • In this same photo, we can see that you have blurred the faces in a way that makes it look much cleaner. --Sebring12Hrs 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I use exactly the same tool on my software for faces and license plates. I just get the "strength" parameter of this tool at a higher level on license plates : at the same distance, you need a lot more blur to make a plate unreadable than to to make a person unrecognizable --Benjism89 18:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • The issue is not the intensity of the blurring on the number plates, but the inaccuracy and roughness of the area selection. The blurred area should be only as large as necessary to make the plate unreadable and should blend softly into the image. In the latest version, however, the blurred regions again have hard edges and are in some cases larger than the numbers themselves — in fact, sometimes larger than the entire number plate. --Augustgeyler 18:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Hope I understood it well this time --Benjism89 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great! --Augustgeyler 22:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 22:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

File:ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A5884).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus A340 European Flight Lab signing ceremony during ILA Berlin Air Show 2018 --MB-one 11:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Wobbanight 17:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the plane and on the signing arm, whereas the face and the rest of the person are out of focus. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF could be higher but still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. --Augustgeyler 10:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. Good enough in A4 print size. --Smial 18:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert Flogaus-Faust. --Sebring12Hrs 19:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

File:At_Brighton_2025_072_-_Volkswagen_T1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen T1, 64 VAN, in Brighton --Mike Peel 08:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The person's face is visible, but the angle isn't very flattering. Good photo, but not high quality. --Túllio F 00:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    • @Túllio F: I've blurred their face, does that help? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 19:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20221017_Wasserturm_Neu-Ulm_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: View up at the water tower in Neu-Ulm --FlocciNivis 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment How about crop to make tower perfectly in the middle of the frame? --Gower 14:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too me QI after adding coordinates. --Milseburg 15:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The category is specific for the monument, whose coordinates are given also on Wikidata.Good quality of the photogrtaphy. --Harlock81 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 22:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 03 Dec → Thu 11 Dec
  • Thu 04 Dec → Fri 12 Dec
  • Fri 05 Dec → Sat 13 Dec
  • Sat 06 Dec → Sun 14 Dec
  • Sun 07 Dec → Mon 15 Dec
  • Mon 08 Dec → Tue 16 Dec
  • Tue 09 Dec → Wed 17 Dec
  • Wed 10 Dec → Thu 18 Dec
  • Thu 11 Dec → Fri 19 Dec