Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

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

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 01 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


October 1, 2025

[edit]

September 30, 2025

[edit]

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]

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:Sunset_on_the_sea_in_Komodo_National_Park,_Indonesia,_20250825_1755_3328.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset on the sea in Komodo National Park, Indonesia --Jakubhal 04:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a good image but a personal one. I know you like it, but IMO it does not have sufficient value per QI guidelines above to be more distinctive as a sunset than the other 17 images of this sunset you took, nor the 263,056 found if you search on “sunset” in Commons. Sorry, not QI on value. --GRDN711 04:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
     Comment You are not an objective judge of what is valuable and what is not; your opinions are subjective and, in my view, unjustified --Jakubhal 05:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not the best sharpness, but per Jakubhal !!! I personnaly don't care what is the amount of pictures of sunset in Commons. What about Cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris ? And "valuable" is an argument usefull for VIC, not QIC to me. Every sunset is unique because not at the place in the world. --Sebring12Hrs 08:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal and Sebring12Hrs Юрий Д.К. 10:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_розы_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roses in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Lmbuga 03:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Image documentation is incorrect. This rose is an unidentified flower species, not a Russian cultural heritage object. The label should be removed. --GRDN711 04:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Strand_--_2025_--_8824.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Angler (on a groyne) in the sea, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 03:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 07:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC) Special. In my eyes not a QI. Sorry. Not sharp enough and blown clouds.--Milseburg 15:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_гортензия_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hydrangea in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Good image but this image is of an unidentified hydrangea flower species and without any obvious connection to a Russian cutural object. You can make sure the location information is in the image description but the cultural label should be removed. --GRDN711 05:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Hoogstraten_Sint-Katharinakerk_noordelijke_zijbeuk_2025-07-03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Northern side-aisle in the St. Catherine's Church in Hoogstraten --ReneeWrites 23:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    Insufficient depth of field, neither foreground nor background are in focus --Uoaei1 06:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Uoaei1 --Cvmontuy 11:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:SW_AB-13_IIT_Gandhinagar_Gujarat_Sep25_A7CR_07891.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South west corner, Academic Block AB-13, IIT Gandhinagar --Tagooty 14:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    *  Oppose The light is very poor for a photo. The building is too dark overall, especially the left side. Perhaps some improvements can be made. However, the current version is not a high-quality image in my opinion. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:V-P_08423_Altenberg_cathedral_interior_-_coronation_of_the_virgin_altar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altenberg cathedral interior - Coronation of the virgin altar --Virtual-Pano 08:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Many minor issues IMO: the chandeliers are more in focus, but the sculpture is not well focused, somewhat blurred. In addition, there is a white line in the upper half of the left edge of the picture, the perspective is correctable, vignetting?, underexposed? --Lmbuga 13:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done hope all flaws are fixed @Lmbuga: Virtual-Pano 09:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know, better "Discuss"--Lmbuga 11:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems too green and too yellow to me. Moreover, the conditions seem unfavorable for a good photo. The harsh shadow on the left is very distracting, and the figures are unevenly lit. -- Spurzem 07:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:V-P_08463_Altenberg_cathedral_exterior_-_seen_from_N.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altenberg cathedral seen from N - autumn colours and rainy sky --Virtual-Pano 08:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion

 Oppose Unsharp, sorry --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done pls check @Cvmontuy: Virtual-Pano 11:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC),

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_гортензия_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hydrangea in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Image documentation is incorrect. This hydrangea is an unidentified flower species, not a Russian cultural heritage object. The label should be removed. --GRDN711 04:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Portland,_Oregon,_September_2025_-_053_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lloyd Center, Portland, Oregon --Another Believer 13:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 15:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Why don't you give the author a chance to work on the photo if the problems can be easily fixed? --Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
    Firstly, because it's tiring to repeat the same thing all the time, secondly, because someone could vote "for" over my simple comment and I don't want to. And third, he can then rename it if he makes the correction, even if declined. --Sebring12Hrs 07:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:VP_08431_Altenberg_cathedral_interior.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altenberg cathedral - looking down centre aisle --Virtual-Pano 08:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Very Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Unbalanced composition and blown lights --Uoaei1 06:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Cvmontuy 06:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Much too dark -- Spurzem 07:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

File:UlicaPapierniPrądnickich-WidokNaPółnoc-PrądnikBiały-POL,_Kraków.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination UlicaPapierniPrądnickich-WidokNaPółnoc-PrądnikBiały-POL, Kraków --Igor123121 05:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Weak details, titled --Jakubhal 05:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:UlicaGenerałaStanisławaSosabowskiego-StojakiRowerowe-PrądnikBiały-POL,_Kraków.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination UlicaGenerałaStanisławaSosabowskiego-StojakiRowerowe-PrądnikBiały-POL, Kraków --Igor123121 05:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective distortion --Jakubhal 05:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Rail_transport_infrastructure_map_-_FR_-_Île-de-France.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. Geographically correct rail transport infrastructure map of Île-de-France (France), as of 2024. --Benjism89 09:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose I admire the effort, but there are a few things to fix for QI: 1) The choice of font isn't great for readability. 2) Some of the text is above other text. 3) the highlights behind text isn't always perfectly aligned with the text itself. --MB-one 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review. 1) I believe this font (Ubuntu) is quite easy to read, and there are only a few opensource fonts supported by QGis. 2) I found one place where there was text above another one (Versailles-Rive-Droite), please tell me if you saw another one. 3) An unalignment between text and highlight is highly possible as I have to correct manually the position of texts when they are one above the other in QGis' export, but I made another check and could find one --Benjism89 17:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 21:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Tierser-Alpl-Hütte,_2444_m,_2018-10-19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Die Tierser-Alpl-Hütte auf 2444 m im Herbst 2018, im Hintergrund zu sehen ist die Roterdspitze mit 2655 m. --2015 Michael 2015 19:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Overexposed with the sunlight side blown out. Might be fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion Plozessor. The histogram of the picture is well balanced and I like the exposure as it is. --2015 Michael 2015 08:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Of course the histogram is balanced since there are no values > 100 %. Still the sunlit wall is completely white and merged with the windows. I agree that it's a very beautiful picture otherwise, but can't promote it with that defect. If I had the raw file, I'd probably mask that wall and reduce exposure only for it. --Plozessor 03:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Okay. Some minor parts are quite bright. But overall, I think the image captures the location excellently under good conditions. Other images have been promoted at QIC with unproblematic but also very dull light. This is worth discussing.--Milseburg 15:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Elektr_skuter._Kogon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Electric tricycle. Kagan. Uzbekistan. --Jamshid Nurkulov 21:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    I like the image as a whole, but I'm not sure if a blurred face is acceptable for QI. I'd like clarification from those who are aware. --Екатерина Борисова 03:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a pity for such a beautiful scene! But the blurred face doesn't fit into a QI. I sometimes put a mask on the people in such cases (for example the driver of NSU Quickly). I would also crop the photo under discussion here more tightly. -- Spurzem 09:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred face, sorry. --Lmbuga 13:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Fresco_paintings_of_Raja_Mahal,_Orchha.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresco paintings of Raja Mahal, Orchha. By User:ShiladityaM --Herpking 07:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 17:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Too soft, borderline sharpness, blown highlight at left... Please discuss --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uneven lighting. Also, an attempt should be made to correct the perspective. -- Spurzem 07:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Strand,_Sonnenuntergang_--_2025_--_9661.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset on the beach, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 04:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose This is a beautiful composition, but it has blownout highlights. --Fdy3k 23:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that can't be avoided when the subject is in the foreground. However, it is correctly exposed and, since the background is blurred anyway, I don't find the area around the sun distracting. On the contrary, I actually think it looks good. HDR photography is hardly feasible given the amount of movement in the sea. --XRay 13:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes a bit borderline, but he can't do anything more with this sun right in the eyes, I think it's not so failed, very interesting lights and compo. --Sebring12Hrs 22:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Mergellstr_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hambur-Harburg, residential building Mergellstrasse 3 --KaiBorgeest 20:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Contours between the sky and the roof is overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 22:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs--Lmbuga 13:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Waisentor-Kempten-2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waisentor, part of the former city fortifications of Kempten --Tuxyso 15:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 15:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strongly distorted with PC. Lvova 19:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but per Lvova, sorry. The tower appears ‘top-heavy’ and leaning backwards. --Lmbuga 23:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Not done any perspective correction in post. Just used a high quality UWA lens, camera straight and croped the foreground. --Tuxyso 23:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 05:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support, but good quality. This is an ultra-wide-angle shot (19 mm on full frame!), and anyone wondering why they look like this can find out more about the optical laws responsible for this here. Those lenses are made for situations where you can't get enough distance to the object. If you check the (correct!) geodata for this object, you will see that the maximum available distance for this view is approximately 40 metres. The geodata shown in the image description is incorrect; it refers to St. Mang Square in Kempten. Therefore, this image only receives a B grade. --Syntaxys 07:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction isn't as successful as it should be. One gets the impression that the tower is getting wider at the top and is tilting backward. -- Spurzem 14:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)^
  •  Comment probably ✓ Done, I have moderately worked on the perspective, please take another look. An improvement, Spurzem, Syntaxys, Tournasol7, Lmbuga, Lvova? But keep in mind: As the image was before is the version coming from the camera when I align the camera with a leveler and crop the foreground. In the new version I used "ratio" to correct against the output from the camera/lens. What is better? --Tuxyso 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 17:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Paisaje_en_el_parque_nacional_de_Amboseli,_Kenia,_2024-05-22,_DD_79-82_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Landscape in Amboseli National Park, Kenya --Poco a poco 07:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no QI in my eyes. Sharpness is low and resolution too. --Milseburg 09:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Very good picture. --Sebring12Hrs 12:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's absolutely unsharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart from the fact that the image is really very soft in terms of sharpness, it doesn't really have much interesting information to offer – everything is too small. It would have been better to construct this panorama using 4–5 shots taken at 50 mm. --Syntaxys 07:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-05-05_Unterzeichnung_des_Koalitionsvertrages_der_21._Wahlperiode_des_Bundestages_by_Sandro_Halank–032.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Signing of the coalition agreement for the 21st election period of the Bundestag (Germany) at 5 May 2025 --Sandro Halank 19:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The foto itself is good. But the person's name should be given in the file name and the description. --Milseburg 09:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
 Info Description was improved yesterday, but file name is still not really meaningful.--Milseburg 14:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The file name is ambiguous; it suggests that Sandro Halank signed the coalition agreement and is the person in the picture. I would recommend this file name: 2025-05-05_Saskia_Esken_bei_Unterzeichnung_des_Koalitionsvertrages_für_den_21._Bundestag,_Photo_by_Sandro_Halank–032.jpg --Syntaxys 08:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is somewhere between the ears and temples, and this was fixed rather poorly and unfavourably in post-processing using sharpening. The bright background on the right also causes glare in the hair. --Smial 14:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 23:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination --Sandro Halank 20:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Podtynie 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA's on branches again, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see CAs. Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 13:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are branches and leaves blue. I left some notes. --Milseburg 14:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image documentation is incomplete. Park must be identified. --GRDN711 03:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Podtynie 2 --Jacek Halicki 06:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA's on branches again, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see CAs, perhaps small overexposed areas--Lmbuga 14:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as the others. --Milseburg 15:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image documentation is incomplete. Park must be identified. --GRDN711 03:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Podtynie 3 --Jacek Halicki 06:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA's on branches again, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 14:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I left a note where the leaves are blue. --Milseburg 14:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image documentation is incomplete. Park must be identified. --GRDN711 03:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Победник,_Београд_(The_Victor,_Belgrade,_Serbia).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Victor, Belgrade --PetarM 07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sure about the WB here. It looks overall to purple. Image hight is quite low.--Milseburg 14:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Meets at least minimum QI criteria, from my point of view --Virtual-Pano 09:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC) I disagree.
  •  Comment It's worth to discuss. --Milseburg 09:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful picture, no issue with the size, but White Balance is definitely off. Not too hard to fix though. --Plozessor 03:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg, Plozessor : Quality images must have reasonable colors and shouldn’t be too bright. Note that this does not necessarily mean natural colors.

Here i gave you what is written on Instructions. So can you make difference between VI, QI and FP !? Original color must be in VI i suppose, while on FP is discusable. On QI same. Simple "Fuji Velvia". --PetarM 12:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@PetarM: So you agree that these colors aren't natural? I really don't understand why unnatural colors would be reasonable here. What's the purpose of "Fuji Velvia"? It should be clear that on QIC, the types of coloring shouldn't be arbitrary. --Milseburg (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:34, 30 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)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal, sorry. --Harlock81 17:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 17:57, 29 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)
  •  Oppose 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)
Add implicite oppose vote --Smial 14:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good in A4 print size. Nice colours, lighting and composition. --Smial 14:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Because this blurred right cross ruins the compo IMO. It's a shame. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 22:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Because the right cross is only a bit blurred IMO--Lmbuga 04:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:15, 30 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)
  •  Oppose Dull colors and noise reduction make the photo look almost like a smartphone photo. --Smial 15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I believe colors are close to reality here. And about noise reduction : I understand your point of view, that I have to balance with the fact that some voters here will oppose any picture with just a small amount of noise, which is hard to avoid in low-light and no-tripod conditions. --Benjism89 06:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, it is my POV. I accept a certain amount of image noise at any time if it is unavoidable or at least appropriate given the shooting conditions. But what really bothers me are those smartphone photos where noise reduction and sharpening cancel each other out, resulting in image details that look as smooth as Lego plastic right next to details that are torn apart by oversharpening, as well as the ugly artifacts that this creates at the transitions. I know that I am in the minority with this opinion. Many good photos have been rejected because they required high ISO settings due to fast action in poor lighting conditions, because people think that sports or stage shots are feasible with noise-free ISO100 at a half-second exposure time. --Smial 16:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Crop is tight but probably acceptable. But why f/11 for a situation like this? Would probably have been much better with lower f-step and lower ISO. --Plozessor 03:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please remember I use a full frame camera, so f/11 is equivalent to f/7,3 on an APS-C camera. I tested several configurations here (as I often do in low-light situations) and the ends of the cross are not sharp with f-numbers under 11. --Benjism89 06:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Podtynie 4 by User:Jacek Halicki --Boston9
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Heavy CA's on branches. --Екатерина Борисова 03:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. No CA... --Sebring12Hrs 07:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I may be mistaken, and these blue lines on branches are not called CA, but something else. In any case their presence makes the picture look definitely not QI. --Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are certainly slight CAs. --Milseburg 09:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. No CA... Per Sebring12Hrs--Lmbuga 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image documentation is incomplete. This park with a national monument must have a name. Please update image description. --GRDN711 03:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_w_Podtyniu_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Podtynie 5 by User:Jacek Halicki --Boston9
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Heavy CA's on branches. --Екатерина Борисова 03:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Absolutely ZERO CA... --Sebring12Hrs 07:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I may be mistaken, and these blue lines on branches are not called CA, but something else. In any case their presence makes the picture look definitely not QI. --Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see there CAs too. --Milseburg 09:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 14:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info I leave a note, where the leaves are blue. --Milseburg 14:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image documentation is incomplete. This is described as a park in the small Polish village of Podtynie with a national monument but it has no name. I am sure it has a name and this should be in the image description. --GRDN711 03:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:46, 30 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)
      •  Question Are the columns exactly cylindrical, or are they slightly conical or tapered toward the top? --Smial (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
        •  Comment They are cylindrical as usual for buildings in the classical style. You can find many other photos in the category for comparison. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The leaning window is too disturbing IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 15:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 17:48, 29 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 17:46, 29 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)
  • temp  Oppose. I am quite confused about the varying color rendering. The other photos in the interior views category also show a diverse mix of white balance settings. Sometimes bluish, sometimes greenish, sometimes the walls are gray, sometimes warm white. Is the light there so dependent on the weather? --Smial 12:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, this picture and the one below have very different white balance, which can't both be correct. I guess that this one is off. --Plozessor 03:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It has been an overcast day with passing rain showers and a time lapse of ~ 10 minutes between this shot and V-P_08379_Altenberg_cathedral_-_interior_looking_east_01.jpg - This resulted in quite a variety of hues throughout the series of interior Altenberg Cathedral shots. One could now adjust colour temperatures to match throughout the series, but the differences reflect the various light changes that occurred. @Smial and Plozessor: Virtual-Pano 08:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:40, 30 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)
  • temp  Oppose. I am quite confused about the varying color rendering. The other photos in the interior views category also show a diverse mix of white balance settings. Sometimes bluish, sometimes greenish, sometimes the walls are gray, sometimes warm white. Is the light there so dependent on the weather? --Smial 12:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 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)
    •  Comment I doubt, that someone painted blurry cracks on the glass ;-) --MB-one 16:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the others. Sorry, but it is too blurry. --Harlock81 17:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. ReneeWrites 23:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 17:45, 29 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)
  •  Support I see no problem with traffic sign here. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • 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
  • Tue 30 Sep → Wed 08 Oct
  • Wed 01 Oct → Thu 09 Oct