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 September 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 September 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 September 29 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 02:56, 29 September 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).


September 29, 2025

[edit]

September 28, 2025

[edit]

September 27, 2025

[edit]

September 26, 2025

[edit]

September 25, 2025

[edit]

September 24, 2025

[edit]

September 23, 2025

[edit]

September 22, 2025

[edit]

September 21, 2025

[edit]

September 20, 2025

[edit]

September 19, 2025

[edit]

September 18, 2025

[edit]

September 16, 2025

[edit]

September 13, 2025

[edit]

September 12, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:V-P_08419_Altenberg_cathedral_Madonna_low-angle_side.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination Sorry gentlemen, you are absolutly right - This is noat a QI Virtual-Pano 22:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 15:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctic_skua_(Stercorarius_parasiticus)_Keflavíkurbjarg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus) --Charlesjsharp 08:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 12:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too strong noise and weak details of the bird --Jakubhal 16:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Compo and colors are attractive as a thumbnail, but the bird, which is very small here, is noisy. Sorry --Benjism89 17:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Great_northern_diver_(Gavia_immer)_breeding_Kaldbakstjarnir.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great northern diver (Gavia immer) --Charlesjsharp 08:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 12:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Overprocessed with too aggressive denoising, resulting in lost detail on the head and eye --Jakubhal 16:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Ireland_Clonmacnoise_BW_2025-09-09_16-37-40.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ireland, Clonmacnoise, crosses with the Shannon in the background --Berthold Werner 12:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 17:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    The right cross is very blurry, is it good enough for QI? I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 01:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Paray-le-Monial_-_Musée_du_Hiéron_-_Christ_de_Varenne-l'Arconce.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paray-le-Monial (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Hiéron museum - The Christ of Varenne-l'Arconce (12th c.) --Benjism89 06:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question the crop is rather tight - is this fixable? --Virtual-Pano 08:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
With PC applied, I could have a larger crop on all sides but the right side, unfortunately. Or I could not use PC, but then the crosss would be narrower at the top than at the bottom --Benjism89 11:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but this crop is too tight for me - maybe others have a different point of view? --Virtual-Pano 21:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to read other opinions --Benjism89 08:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop is tight but not too tight. --Milseburg 09:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This crop is not an issue to me, but the sharpness ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Shapness is ok in my eyes. --Milseburg 09:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(4).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 09:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(5).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 09:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Елагин_дворец,_колонны.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columns of Yelagin Palace (angle view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    It's not possible to apply a PC ? --Sebring12Hrs 19:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    It's angle view to corner columns of the palace, but both columns are vertical, I've checked it before nominating. --Екатерина Борисова 03:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose A PC should by applied. --Sebring12Hrs 22:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't understand why you think a PC is needed here, so I'd like to hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 01:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Raadzaal_stadhuis_Eindhoven_(2025)_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The council chamber of Eindhoven City Hall. --S. Perquin 21:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Look at right it is leaning a lot at full size. This concrete wall doesn't leaning in rrality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:V-P_08410_Altenberg_cathedral_interior_looking_west.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altenberg cathedral - centre aisle - looking W --Virtual-Pano 08:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Herpking 10:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done yes indeed my bad - I picked the wrong file - pls check again @Herpking: Virtual-Pano 17:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see any meaningful noise now.--Lmbuga 19:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 06:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:V-P_08379_Altenberg_cathedral_-_interior_looking_east_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altenberg cathedral - centre aisle - looking E --Virtual-Pano 08:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Noisy and Chromatic abration present. --Herpking 10:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done yes indeed my bad - I picked the wrong file - pls check again @Herpking: Virtual-Pano 15:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The original existing picture problems are well resolved, I'm pro QI. --2015 Michael 2015 19:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image -- Spurzem 09:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Virtual-Pano 22:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Stift_Ardagger_Kirche_Margaretenfenster_Himmelfahrt_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the romanesque stained glass window devoted to St. Margaret (Margaretenfenster, 1230–40), collegiate church Ardagger, Lower Austria: Two angels carry Margaret's soul to heaven --Uoaei1 04:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft IMO --MB-one 17:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Let's discuss! --Uoaei1 06:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good colors, good lighting and correct perspektive. I think we see here an image of good quality. -- Spurzem 09:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support So do I --Imehling 11:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 15:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support yes there are some blurred areas but these aren't caused by the skills of the photogrpher but those of the glass painters from my point of view Virtual-Pano 20:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Virtual-Pano 20:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Bronze_skull_at_the_entrance_of_the_Santa_Maria_delle_Anime_del_Purgatorio_ad_Arco_Church,_Naples,_Italy_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze skull at the entrance of the Santa Maria delle Anime del Purgatorio ad Arco Church, Naples, Italy (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose good idea but the main subject is properly exposed, sorry --Virtual-Pano 18:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Did you mean to say that the main subject is not properly exposed? If so, I disagree: there are no clipped highlights nor crushed shadows, and the details of the skull are clearly visible (there was a touch of chromatic aberration at the top though, which I corrected in a new version) --Julesvernex2 19:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photograph may be intended to be seen as a work of photographic art; but in my opinion, it is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult. The composition is a matter of taste, for me the skull doesn't stand out enough from the background and has too low DoF. Sure, low DoF was intentional to get bokeh, but even many parts of the skull are not sharp. --Plozessor 04:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    Fair point, parts of the skull are indeed blurry, a focus stack would have helped. If the lens allowed for it, I would also have been tempted to use a shallower depth-of-field. However, I'm not sure the trade-off would be worth it: the skull would stand out more, but the surrounding environment (a dark and gritty street with an ominous skull staring at the passerby) would be less visible. --Julesvernex2 09:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Суздаль_2025,_церковь_Бориса_и_Глеба_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Suzdal, Saints Boris and Gleb Church --Vsatinet 20:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • There is a big dust spot on the left tower. --Heylenny 05:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you, fixed --Vsatinet 17:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
    There are still artifacts or dust sports at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 11:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
    Oops... My eyes weren't strong enough to see these spots. ОК. ✓ Done I tried to find and remove them. --Vsatinet 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
    imho it's an unlucky example of PC: the tower is soft and falling down --Lvova 17:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp. --XRay 04:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't like the decline, please let us discuss this. The tower looks as if it's falling, but it isn't. And I don't think it is really unsharp. But let's have more opinions. --Dirtsc 10:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Colleagues, thank you for your criticism. I'm removing the image from the nomination. I'll try to make a "full remastering" of it and then nominate it again. I can't make better. --Vsatinet 13:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness in full resolution is below QI standards IMO, probably due f/16 which wouldn't have been necessary. --Plozessor 04:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Curious_Owlets.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Curious Owlets at the National Botanical Garden of Bangladesh --MS Sakib 20:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, look unnatural at full resolution. --George Chernilevsky 06:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Already declined, see Archives September 15 2025. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition and good quality. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should be closed as already declined with early result 0:2, wrong nomination. -- George Chernilevsky 10:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, already declined. --Plozessor 04:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 06:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Harlock81 18:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In reality, the birds are not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 10:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-09-19_D500-0686_Achim-Lammerts_Hambacher-Schloss-NO.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the northeast on Heidelberg near Hambach towards Hambach Castle. --Syntaxys 06:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentSome areas (on the castle) seem motion blurred at left. --Sebring12Hrs 10:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 11:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's definitely heat haze, because the castle is standing firmly on the mountain and I can't shake the camera in some areas only. I used a tripod. --Syntaxys 16:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sending this to CR. Please do not reset to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, it's really not intentional. Since this has happened to me a few times, what is the best way to write a comment on a vote? When I do it via ‘Edit section’, I have caused an edit conflict a few times. --Syntaxys 06:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality in my opinion -- Spurzem 10:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The lens may be slightly soft towards the edges of the image, and the CA correction may only be 98.3% successful. However, it is certainly good enough for A4 size print or even larger. --Smial 14:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC) PS: PS: I am grateful for every photo here on QIC that has not been excessively sharpened.
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 05:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Pałac_von_Magnisów_w_Ołdrzychowicach_Kłodzkich,_oficyna_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Outbuilding in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie 1 by User:Jacek Halicki --Boston9
  • Discussion
  • Shadows are too dark and the right side is not sharp enough. --Екатерина Борисова 03:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit borderline indeed, feel free to oppose, but the highlights are not so strong on this one and shadows brings something IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 18:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think we need some other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark in the foreground. -- Spurzem 10:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm with Sebring12Hrs here. In thumbnail size the foreground looks too dark but at full size it has something. --Plozessor 04:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)~
 Comment I'm always amazed at the different interpretations of the term "quality." If I look closely, in the darkness I can see a gazebo covered with two slats, and otherwise a few dilapidated buildings. What purpose could this image serve? Perhaps there is a Wikipedia article on "dilapidated monuments in the shadow"? -- Spurzem 08:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It could surely be used in an article about the Magnis palace and park complex in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie which is a registered historical monument in Poland. --Plozessor 04:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs, I'm glad the author didn't lift the shadows too much and kept that nice dappled light effect --Julesvernex2 09:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Árbol_de_cedro_en_el_Puesto_de_Control_Huampal_-_PNYC_29.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cedrela odorata, Parque Nacional Yanachaga Chemillén,- Pozuzo, perteneciente al distrito de Pozuzo, Oxapampa, Pasco, Perú. By User:Guillermo Carlos Gómez --Felino Volador 22:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Trunks are not sharp, there is some noise, and part is overexposed --Jakubhal 04:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive purple CA, also overcontrasted (blown out as well as pitch black parts), noise, blur. --Plozessor 04:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Pose_of_the_mongoose.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pose of a mongoose at the National Botanical Garden Bangladesh --MS Sakib 20:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Felino Volador 22:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good composition and background, but I think it's overprocessed and the eyes lack sharpness and detail. Sorry --Lmbuga 23:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose artifical DOF overprocessed, eyes and nose unsharp. --Smial 17:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, and looks like AI-created bokeh gone wrong, as Smial said. Could be acceptable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 04:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Keshavnarayan_Vishnu_dol_Joysagar_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Keshavnarayan Vishnu dol, popularly known as Joy dol, was constructed in 1698 by Ahom king Swargadeo Rudra Singha. --Nayan j Nath 20:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MS Sakib 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The detail is not good. A bit underexpossed IMO --Lmbuga 21:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per lmbuga. Needs also perspective correction. Nice composition, though. --Smial 17:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed smartphone picture with little real detail (just look at the trees on the left side). Also underexposed. --Plozessor 04:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Paray-le-Monial_-_Maison_Jaillet_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paray-le-Monial (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Jaillet mansion (now hosting the town hall) - Façade --Benjism89 06:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part is quite unsharp. --Uoaei1 16:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good as it is. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the very top is blurry, but still acceptable. In total this is a very good and beautiful picture. --Plozessor 04:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 05:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Garza_Goliat_(Ardea_goliath),_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-22,_DD_72.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Goliath heron (Ardea goliath), Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 03:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is processed to get the best from the conditions, but is it a good quality? --Lvova 13:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good composition, but detail insufficient for a slow-moving large bird. Overall a bit noisy. --Tagooty 03:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. Not sure about the camera details, but would probably have worked better with lower f-number and lower ISO sensitivity. --Plozessor 04:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Yellow_Moon_Cactus_Full_Ooty_Sep25_A7CR_07885.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moon cactus. Grafted Gymnocalycium mihanovichii (chin cactus). The small "moon" is ~1cm diameter. Ooty --Tagooty 02:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 08:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but very unsharp in full size. --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. Sharpness is good enough regarding the resolution. But are there several dust spots in the background? --Smial 18:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC) PS: The background looks bluish. Such motifs should have neutral background, or natural background, or black/near black.
  • ✓ Done @Smial: Dust spots removed, WB made warmer to match the colour of the wall in the background. --Tagooty 03:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
 Support thx, imho good rework, changed vote. --Smial 11:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the yellow area is better, but I'm not convinced about the green area: very blurred. Also, dust spots. See the area immediately above the yellow and there are at least three dust spots.--Lmbuga 20:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
New review: Many dust spots, sorry. Vignetting?--Lmbuga 20:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Lmbuga: Fixed dust spots and vignetting. Please see the new version. --Tagooty 01:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The green area is not in focus. The yellow is, but the sharpness is a bit bordeline. --Sebring12Hrs 12:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Much better, per Smial--Lmbuga 19:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Церковь_Знамения_Пресвятой_Богородицы_в_Дубровицах_весна_2025_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Church of the Theotokos of the Sign in Dubrovitsy, Moscow region --Никонико962 08:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The top is blurry - probably after PC. --Lvova 17:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still dislike the top. --Lvova 13:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is acceptable. Small parts of the stairs might be blown out, but overall it's a very good picture. --Plozessor 04:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 05:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Tons-of-Rock-festival_Oslo_Norway_2025-9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karaoke box for the audience at Tons of Rock open air festival --Birdesigns 00:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Nice image but uncategorized --MB-one 17:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some categories were added on September 17. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right people are sharp, but : The lower left corner is unfortunately bad cropped. The background seems motion blurred, the sky is burnt, and PC is needed to me (when I look the blue vertical beams). Too many issues that need to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 17:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Would ignore the blown out sky if you fix the perspective and crop that shoulder off. --Plozessor 04:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Shopping_cart_with_traditional_Kenyan_products,_Westgate_Mall,_Nairobi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A shopping cart with traditional Kenyan products at Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. --Yahya 07:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 09:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, many minor issues: The shopping cart is not whole, it is cut off. It needs perspective correction. It seems a little underexposed to me. I don't understand why there is so much noise in the top left corner. --Lmbuga 14:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. Judging from the EXIF details, I guess that it was heavily AI-processed by the smartphone which didn't work out too well. --Plozessor 04:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 05:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:20221019_Baumwoll-Spinnerei_und_Weberei_in_Kempten_Allgäu_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View across the Iller at the run-of-the-river-power-station Keselstraße to the Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei in Kempten --FlocciNivis 05:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI IMO, but several dust spots --Lmbuga 06:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For the reasons stated above --Lmbuga 13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Are the balcony rails on that house really painted with purple and yellow stripes, thicker on the left side and becoming thinner to the right? Looks like moire effect due to wrong processing of the sensor's Bayer filter to me. --Plozessor 04:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Grey_Francolin_sitting_on_a_boundary_wall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grey Francolin (Francolinus pondicerianus) from Sansarpur Terrace, Himachal Pradesh, India. --Herpking 15:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 16:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too much noise reduction IMO: There is no detail in the plumage. --Lmbuga 22:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. In addition, the background is still rather noisy and much of the Exif data was replaced by peculiar numbers (e.g., ISO 0, f/0). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support If I remember right I votet already positiv for this image. It is an interesting composition and good quality. -- Spurzem 13:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand you, are you suggesting some kind of conspiracy? I think your words are unfortunate.--Lmbuga (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The wire is disturbing --Lmbuga (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 15:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 15:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:20230216_Innbrücke_Mühldorf_am_Inn_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An information board at the Inn-Bridge in Mühldorf am Inn --FlocciNivis 05:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image should be cropped to avoid the traffic sign. Otherwise good. --Lmbuga 06:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 15:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 15:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Orchha_Fort_Complex.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orchha Fort Complex By User:ShiladityaM --Herpking 09:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality, but it cannot be accepted without any description. --Lvova 22:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't understand these pale magenta shadows along the contour of the window. They look like CA's. --Екатерина Борисова 03:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Description and caption added. --Herpking 07:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality imho. --Lvova 10:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I still want to understand something about these strange shadows. --Екатерина Борисова 03:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added the implicit opposing vote because this was moved to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture with interesting composition for me. I guess the shadows are an optical effect from the framing with the extremely out-of-focus window, not an image defect. --Plozessor 04:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Juvenile_American_Flamingo_resting_on_the_beach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination juvenile American Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber) resting on the beach of Floreana Island, Galápagos --E bailey 14:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, but please, add location category. --Lvova 22:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    Added location category. --E bailey 00:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good composition, and the depth of field seems too small to me, but above all the back and the wing of the bird are a bit overexposed. -- Spurzem 06:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 19:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly  Oppose as this was a good attempt. Agree with Spurzem on dof and exposire; may be a little soft. The bar for bird images these days is quite high. If you need an excuse to buy better photo gear, this might be it. --GRDN711 16:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Набережная_канала_Грибоедова,_39,_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Griboedov Canal Embankment 39 --Lvova 03:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 04:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but slight PC is needed at left. --Sebring12Hrs 09:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 05:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 21 Sep → Mon 29 Sep
  • Mon 22 Sep → Tue 30 Sep
  • Tue 23 Sep → Wed 01 Oct
  • Wed 24 Sep → Thu 02 Oct
  • Thu 25 Sep → Fri 03 Oct
  • Fri 26 Sep → Sat 04 Oct
  • Sat 27 Sep → Sun 05 Oct
  • Sun 28 Sep → Mon 06 Oct
  • Mon 29 Sep → Tue 07 Oct