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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2026.
  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 August 2026.
  • 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 August 24 2026 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]] 19:57, 24 August 2026 (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).


August 24, 2026

[edit]

August 23, 2026

[edit]

August 22, 2026

[edit]

August 21, 2026

[edit]

August 20, 2026

[edit]

August 19, 2026

[edit]

August 18, 2026

[edit]

August 17, 2026

[edit]

August 16, 2026

[edit]

August 15, 2026

[edit]

August 14, 2026

[edit]

August 13, 2026

[edit]

August 11, 2026

[edit]

August 10, 2026

[edit]

August 9, 2026

[edit]

August 8, 2026

[edit]

August 6, 2026

[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 and author'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:Classic-Gala_2025,_Schwetzingen_(20250906-P1049524).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Smart Roadster at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2025 --MB-one 18:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Glare. --Cutlass 23:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-07-02_-_Rockharz_Luftbild.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Rockharz festival 2026 (by Stahlmann) --Stefan Bollmann 13:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support The aerial photograph is of good quality and clearly shows the effort required for a music festival, transforming fields into a small town for a few days. Furthermore, it perfectly illustrates the subject of the Rockharz articles at a glance. --Stefan Bollmann 14:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    First, please do not vote on the images you nominated yourself, even when you're not the author. Second, I have doubts about the author / copyright of this work : it's quite strange that the same user takes once a year a very-high-resolution drone picture of this festival, and never uses his drone the rest of the year. Metadata says the copyright is owned by "VALOFLY GmbH" : I'm not quite sure if this is a drone mannufacturer or a company selling drone images, could someone reading German please help us ?--Benjism89 15:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    Valofly is a manufacturer of specialist drones for public authorities such as the police and the fire service, industry and research organisations, as well as the German Armed Forces. Daniel Stahlmann is the company’s founder. --Berthold Werner 16:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. Let's assume the account is his and that he personally holds copyright for this image (not his compny or his customer) --Benjism89 11:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose From a technical point of view, this is a very large resolution drone image, but unfortunately it's very grainy at full size --Benjism89 11:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Strażak-26_DSC05743.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fireboat Strażak-26 in Świnoujście, Poland --Pibwl 09:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --DiluteTussle 22:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Chromatic aberration --DiluteTussle 22:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Cadillac_Lyriq,_Motortreff_Bella_Italia_2024,_Munich_(P1190457).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cadillac Lyriq 600 E4 --MB-one 20:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Off center. --Cutlass 22:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done new crop. Thanks for the review --MB-one 21:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Flinders_House_in_Adelaide,_August_2026_(028A0349).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flinders House in Adelaide. --Pangalau 13:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 14:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    CAs in the upper area of the building on the right. The CAs are on the top floor of the building, on the right. In my opinion, it needs a slight correction to the perspective. --Lmbuga 14:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    So it's going to discuss, per rules --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Spiti_River_Right_Bank_Vista_Himachal_Jun18_D72_7645.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiti River (3,700 m (12,100 ft)), Himachal Pradesh, India --Tagooty 03:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree at the moment since there are dust spots to remove. --Milseburg 14:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg: Dust spots are removed in the new version. --Tagooty 03:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks Ok and QI now. --Milseburg 13:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Taranto_BW_2016-10-17_11-41-52.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Taranto, Piazza della Vittoria --Berthold Werner 15:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, no FOP in Italy and the author of this war memorial has not been dead for 70 years (w:it:Francesco Paolo Como) --Benjism89 21:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    In my opinion, this should be clarified in a deletion request. I cannot see any such rule on QI that would justify a counter-vote. There have also been QIs in the past that were subsequently deleted due to copyright infringement. --Berthold Werner 07:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    First criteria in the QI guidelines is "Image page requirements - Copyright status". I don't request deletion for no-FOP cases, because I know that our policy on Commons is a bit picky on this and that in most cases there is almost no chance that the architect or sculptor is going to take legal action if photographs of his work are published without his consent. But not deleting an image with copyright issues is one thing, giving QI label to it is another. --Benjism89 07:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    The complete rule says:"Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license." It means the copyright of the picture! --Berthold Werner 08:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
    But you cannot (should not) release under a free license an image containing non-free elements ... Anyway, let's see what others think ! --Benjism89 11:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Słupiec_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Słupiec by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 08:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 08:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    (Implicit  Oppose per rules) Sky is oversatuared and has an unatural blue --Tuxyso 09:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Słupiec_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Słupiec by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 08:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 08:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Sky is oversatuared and has an unatural blue --Tuxyso 09:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Highrises_under_construction_near_Financial_district.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Highrises under construction near Financial district --I.Mahesh 04:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, but IMO not sharp enough (with the right part especially blurry). Also a part of the sky should be cropped off. --Plozessor 04:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    (Implicit  Support per rules) Sharpness and crop is imho OK, sky could be tigther but I think not bad enough for an oppose. Let's discuss it. --Tuxyso 09:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Ostrogskich_castle,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ostrogskich castle, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 00:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    (Implicit  Oppose per rules) It does not meet the criterium for being properly categorized. --DimiTalen 06:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    Good image but 3 dust spots should be removed. Юрий Д.К. 09:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Rathausgasse,_Graffiti_--_2026_--_221658.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chalk graffiti on Rathausgasse, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Over processed --Vitorperrut555 17:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    I can't agree with you on that. It's not overprocessed. It is, however, a photo taken with a mobile phone. It certainly doesn't have the quality you could achieve with a camera, but in my opinion, it's good enough and doesn't have any serious flaws. --XRay 07:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Warszawy_Centrum_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Old_Town_Market_Square,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Town Market Square, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 00:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose (temporarily) Too much sky IMO. Easy to fix. --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very good sharpness but per Catherine. --Sebring12Hrs 13:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Stefan_Čolović_7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Serbian footballer Stefan Čolović -- Umarxon III 10:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 11:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 09:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Stefan_Čolović_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Serbian footballer Stefan Čolović -- Umarxon III 10:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 11:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 09:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Kartikpur_Jomidar_Bari_(123213).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kartikpur Jomidar Bari, Kartikpur, Naria, Shariatpur, Bangladesh. By User:Moheen --Moheen 18:11, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The building is distorted, and these wires should be retouched. --Екатерина Борисова 02:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural perspective. -- Alvesgaspar 16:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Italy,_Siena,_cathedral_façade_BW_2021-09-24_12-12-25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Siena, cathedral façade --Berthold Werner 11:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Amazing image as a thumbnail, but tops of side towers are completely blurry (especially the left one). In addition, it was said in FP that there are stitching errors here. I don't see it, but maybe someone will check? --Екатерина Борисова 02:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see any significant stitching issue. The left tower is a little bit blurry, but good enough for QI --Benjism89 07:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above, left tower is too blurry. Alvesgaspar 16:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benji 07:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Porsche_959_Komfort_at_Canepa_Motorsports_Museum_Scotts_Valley_dllu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Side profile of a Porsche 959 Komfort on display at the Canepa Motorsports Museum --Dllu 04:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO needs cropping out to expose the main subject, leaving proportions --Pibwl 18:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see the need of further cropping the subject. -- Alvesgaspar 16:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

File:20260813_twelve_spotted_skimmer_rocky_hill_meadows_PD04384.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Twelve-spotted skimmer, Rocy Hill Meadows, Rocky Hill, CT USA --Pdanese 20:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 21:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor composition: subject too small and with blurred areas. I think that if it were properly cropped, it wouldn’t be QI--Lmbuga 22:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Полевой_воробей,_Якутск_08.07.2026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Полевой воробей, Якутск 08.07.2026Я, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии: --SmallSonMarex 07:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurred and too dark --Charlesjsharp 10:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not that bad, exposure is ok to me but sharpness is probably a bit weak --Benjism89 18:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is too soft, crop is too tight. -- Alvesgaspar 16:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 23:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Jomsom,Mustang,Nepal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jomsom,Mustang,Nepal. --Saddam19 05:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad processed, posterized, low detail. --George Chernilevsky 08:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite a fine image in terms of a composition, well detailed buildings in center. --Pibwl 18:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George Chernilevsky. The image shows strange processing artifacts throughout—heavy sharpening right next to blurred details. Is it AI-upscaled? It’s also tilted, needs PC and/or CCW rotation. --Smial 12:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, plus poor categorization. --Plozessor 15:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor details and perspective distortion --Jakubhal 09:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:DeLorean_DMC-12,_ADAC_Deutschland_Klassik_2025,_Heidelberg_(P1048747).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DeLorean DMC-12 at ADAC Deutschland Klassik 2025 --MB-one 16:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 16:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
    (Implicit  Oppose per rules) It should be cropped - at least a half of a man on the left, but I think that a background isn't interesting here either (I'd cut it on top and on the right around a green window, leaving proportions) --Pibwl 18:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
@Pibwl ✓ Done Thanks for the review. --MB-one 18:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Pibwl 10:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious distortion, please look at the proportions of the car and the heads inside it. Alvesgaspar 16:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
    • I can't see any. Do you look at the actual photo or uncropped thumbnail? Pibwl 18:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Golden_hour_in_the_National_Museum_of_Fine_Arts.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Picked as favorite of Flickr's June photo challenge --Aplucas0703 00:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Note that the grain was intentionally left at this level for artistic effect. --Aplucas0703 01:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Beautiful. Could you apply perspective correction? The walls on the left are skewed. --DimiTalen 06:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Will work on it! Never done it before so I'll have to learn how to do it. --Aplucas0703 19:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a perspective correction. I leave it up to the other reviewers now. --DimiTalen 05:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Open to discuss. --DimiTalen 09:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Please do not send anything to CR wothout a vote, with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I understand the artistic intent, but to me it doesn't work here. The people at the center ruin the compo and the contrast is too strong. From a technical point of view, this image is very noisy, areas are burnt and the WB is off. Sorry --Benjism89 07:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 07:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Roodkapje_(2026).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little Red Riding Hood in the Fairytale Forest at Efteling in the Netherlands. --Perquirius 16:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Would be better if brightened somewhat? --DimiTalen 06:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I never edit my photos (I'm afraid I wouldn't know how), but if you or someone else could brighten this photo, I would really appreciate it! --Perquirius 11:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I edited it to show what's possible with (minimal) editing. I think it's a good picture, there's just some blurriness at the bottom. Opinions of others as to QI requirements? --DimiTalen 09:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Open to discuss. --DimiTalen 09:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Italy,_Siena,_cathedral_façade_BW_2021-09-24_11-03-58.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Italy, Siena, cathedral façade --Berthold Werner 16:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Top part is out of focus --Cvmontuy 18:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
assumed implicite oppose --Smial 08:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky could be a bit brighter, but the sharpness is ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 10:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC) I am impressed every time by how good this ancient lens still is—provided you know how to handle it—even though its optical design dates back to the era of six-megapixel cameras...
  •  Oppose The upper part is really blurry, sorry. Just look at the statue on the top. Also these cropped people in bottom right corner are disturbimg. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Borderline sharpness, sky too dark. It's certainly impossible to have take a picture of this facade without anyone in it but waiting a few minutes, you could probably avoid having a photographer in the foreground at the center and people cut on both sides. Overall not a QI to me, sorry --Benjism89 08:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 08:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Église_Notre-Dame-de-Grâce_d'Esquerchin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Notre-Dame-de-Grâce d'Esquerchin --JackyM59 07:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Misfortunate lighting (main part of building in shadow) --Fl.schmitt 14:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Dark but readable with details ... This is a documentary photo. We don't always show up at the right time... --JackyM59 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
      • Hmm - showing up at the right time is IMHO sine qua non for a QI. --Fl.schmitt 18:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Lighting can have different artistic effects, not everything needs to be directly lit to be a good image. --Aplucas0703 01:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice and useful snapshot, but IMHO not sufficient for QI. Bad lighting has no artistic effect in this case. --Fl.schmitt 13:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Fl.schmitt. --Smial 08:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It would be better in sunshine. In my experience, however, unfavorable lighting conditions (unfavorable sun position, bad weather) are not a valid reason for decline with QIC, but they are with FPC.--Milseburg 15:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Hmm, so that means unfavorable lighting—like a direct frontal flash in a portrait—wouldn't be grounds for rejection? Would "It was too dark!" suffice as an excuse in such a case? Just try explaining that to people who aren't allowed to use flash for action or stage photography, and whose photos have repeatedly been rejected for the same old reasons: "too noisy", "too shallow depth of field," or—take your pick—"motion blur." --Smial 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
 Comment When portrait or stage photography succeeds under difficult lighting conditions, it deserves a QI award. In landscape or architectural photography, it's only natural that subjects are sometimes in shadow. If a successful photo is taken in such a situation, it's also worthy of an award. This is the case here. For selection in a Wiki project, I would prefer a photo taken in more sunlight, but other users might need the exact opposite.--Milseburg 17:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Image guideline explicit says: "Lighting should be appropriate for portraying the subject.". This applies to both FP and QI. In this photo, the main subject is the church tower—or rather, its façade—and it is entirely in shadow. It might have turned out better an hour or two later; after all, a church isn't going to run away. The fact that the camera and image processing managed to salvage something recognizable is technically impressive, but that still doesn't make this a "good architectural photo"—unless, of course, one wanted to use it as a prime example of poor lighting. Back when I traveled extensively to photograph sites for heritage lists, I produced plenty of images under unfavorable lighting conditions simply to ensure that a picture existed in the first place. But the idea of ​​expecting a QI badge for such photos—just because they are technically sound—would never have crossed my mind. --Smial 12:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, dark subject in shadow in front of bright sky is not a good composition. It can probably be improved with processing, pseudo-HDR mapping etc., but even this has not been done here. "When portrait or stage photography succeeds under difficult lighting conditions", yes, but this is mostly about non-repeatable pictures. If you take a picture of an athelete running over the finish line, and in this moment there's a cloud, you can't repeat that, or probably you're in a dim museum where you have to use the little light that is available. But IMO this exception does not apply to a picture of a building where you could simply take the picture at another time of the day. --Plozessor 15:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. Юрий Д.К. 22:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The façade is clearly underexposed. I can't understand why this picture was promoted to QI when other quality pictures get rejected. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 06:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion, an image can be made QI with bad lighting, especially when having a good lighting on ths subject is impossible or hard (building facing North or in a narrow street, most interiors, etc). But then, the photographer should have chosen camera settings and processed his image in a way that this poor lighting is compensated as much as possible. Here, I'm afraid the church is strongly underexposed. --Benjism89 15:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Bijenorchis_-_bee_orchid_-_Ophrys_apifera_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bee orchid (Ophrys apifera) in flower in the dune slack of the Kennemerstrand - the Netherlands --BouketenCate 13:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 16:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
  • (Implicit  Oppose per rules.) I disagree. There is only one bloom in the middle that is sharp. Working with a 300 mm lens, you need to use higher f/stop than f/4, say, f/8 or f/11, to pull the entire inflorescence into focus. --GRDN711 23:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
    • The other flowers are either closed or facing away from te camera. Having them in focus would add little to nothing to the image. One could argue that their unsharpness draws the eye to the one sharp flower. Moreover, shooting this at F/8.0 or F/11 would absolutely ruin the background. --BouketenCate 11:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support An obvious choice of the photographer. -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition, and lighting. Unfortunately I must agree to GRND711, DOF is too small even for the focused bloom, and the mage is oversharpened. --Smial 09:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 16 Aug → Mon 24 Aug
  • Mon 17 Aug → Tue 25 Aug
  • Tue 18 Aug → Wed 26 Aug
  • Wed 19 Aug → Thu 27 Aug
  • Thu 20 Aug → Fri 28 Aug
  • Fri 21 Aug → Sat 29 Aug
  • Sat 22 Aug → Sun 30 Aug
  • Sun 23 Aug → Mon 31 Aug
  • Mon 24 Aug → Tue 01 Sep