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 26 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:48, 26 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 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 17, 2025

[edit]

September 16, 2025

[edit]

September 15, 2025

[edit]

September 14, 2025

[edit]

September 13, 2025

[edit]

September 12, 2025

[edit]

September 11, 2025

[edit]

September 10, 2025

[edit]

September 9, 2025

[edit]

September 1, 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: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)

File:Ghanashyam_Dol_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ghanashyam House or Nati Gosain dol is an early 18th-century brick monument built during the reign of the king Rudra Singha. --Nayan j Nath 20:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MS Sakib 20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction needed. --George Chernilevsky 06:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective is wrong. Furthermore the colors seem oversaturated. -- Spurzem 10:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 14:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Smial 14:15, 25 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 14:17, 25 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)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:04, 26 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:07, 26 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Friedrichshall_Saline_Brunnen-20250914-RM-114704.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Northern pump room of the salt works in Friedrichshall --Ermell 05:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 05:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Some CAs. --Tournasol7 06:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review.--Ermell 22:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 02:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:48, 24 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:23, 26 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:27, 26 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty 13:46, 25 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)
  • Discussion
  • 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:29, 26 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)
  • Discussion
  • 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

File:045_Marsh_deer_under_Pink_Ipê_tree_in_Encontro_das_Águas_State_Park_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marsh deer walking under a Pink Ipê in Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas, Brazill --Giles Laurent 14:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It's not ideal, but it could be QI if it weren't for that problem on the animal's right hind leg: Vertical line behind which the colour changes. Am I confused? The line extends downwards with less clarity. I don't know what's happening. --Lmbuga 14:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
@Lmbuga, the « line » is simply a long grass blade. You can find two other long grass blades together (with one of them having a cricket at the top) if you just look a little more to the right. As for the change of color, the inner part of the back legs of this deer species has a different color which is natural. Look at this picture for comparison. So I see no problem with this image and it is QI in my opinion -- Giles Laurent 17:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The right hind leg looks really strange with very straight diagonal line with no beginning and no end. This is completely different from the grass that is visible at the front legs. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and random composition. --Smial 13:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I was mistaken: you're right. I'm also convinced by Smial's reasons because, as I said, I don't think the image is ideal.
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 24 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)
  • Discussion
  •  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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:35, 26 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 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:Восстания_33,_СПб_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vosstaniya 33 --Lvova 04:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 06:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to nominate those which don't need correction imho; cannot fix it in the nearest future anyway. --Lvova 21:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Dr. Thomas Liptak 11:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose It's leaning at left. --Sebring12Hrs 06:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose As above. --Dirtsc 10:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Lajkonik_fete_2025,_Vistula_river,_Kraków,_Poland_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lajkonik fete 2025, Vistula river, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose I like your photos, and this plot is interesting, but the focus is on the hand on the foreground. --Lvova 17:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    @Lvova: and now? --Igor123121 20:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    Now you cropped the focused part :) But ok, let's wait for more opinions. --Lvova 20:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
     Info Sent to CR. Please do not revert to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:02, 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Black-White-Cat-Sitia-Crete-5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black and white cat. Sitia, Crete, Greece.--Petro Stelte 05:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, sorry. --Till.niermann 05:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version. Before rejecting an image outright, you should give the nominator a chance to make improvements. --Petro Stelte 06:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this; the guidelines don't mention this rule. --Till.niermann 06:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
If a picture is really bad—for example, it's blurry and can't be improved through editing—then you reject it. But if a picture can be improved through simple editing—for example, brightening up an overly dark image—then you write that as a review under the picture. --Petro Stelte 06:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no such rule and never has been. On the contrary, I consider the discussion in the list of candidates above to be extremely counterproductive, because it means that far too many photos remain on this page for far too long. Currently, it is once again over 200kb in size, which is a pita for slow Internet connections or older computers. Simply don't put images with such easy to fix issues to QIC. --Smial 11:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, we disagree. There are users who share my opinion. You see that often enough. By the way, I prefer it dark, and I personally liked the previous version better. That's why I nominated that first and only edited it after Till.niermann rejected it. But another question: Do you think it's fair that Till.niermann persists with his rejection even though the image has been edited and a new version has been uploaded? Underexposure can't be the reason anymore. -- Petro Stelte 13:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
a) I don't see myself as a moral authority who could judge fairness here on QIC. Why don't you ask Till.niermann directly if he would like to revise his judgement? b) Which of my comments do you disagree with? That the page loads very slowly at well over 200kB? c) If you prefer the dark version, why do you change it? I personally stand by my pictures, and unless there are objective reasons for rejection, I can live with them being rejected. --Smial 11:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Air_Iceland_Connect_TF-FXI_taxiing_at_Reykjavík_Airport.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Air Iceland Connect TF-FXI taxiing at Reykjavík Airport. --Mosbatho 20:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Carsten Steger 05:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, CAs, many CAs. Vignetting? --Lmbuga 23:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per lmbuga. Interesting shot, though. --Smial 12:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_Park15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour Park --Юрий Д.К. 12:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice scene but only the path in the foreground is in good focus. --Tagooty 03:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for vote but let's hear other opinions. QI for me. --Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. Looks overprocessed (denoising)/oversaturated (colours). General sharpness is rather ok regarding the high resolution. --Smial 12:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Castor_church_in_Karden_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Castor church in Karden, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture was taken at an unfortunate time and is therefore too dark. Furthermore, the perspective correction is poor. The towers appear to be drifting apart at the top and falling backward. I know how difficult they are to photograph because we have to stand very close to the church. But compare my photo. I think it's much better. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Exposure and perspective, probably fixable. Suggestion: https://ibb.co/nsNbKgyx. --Plozessor 06:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
    Yes your version is better @Tournasol7: could you check it ? --Sebring12Hrs 10:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem and Plozessor--Lmbuga 23:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:13, 21 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:12, 21 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:09, 21 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), 1 oppose → Promote?   --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)
  • Discussion
     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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Spichrz_w_Trzebieszowicach_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Granary in Trzebieszowice 1 by User:Jacek Halicki Boston9 19:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The left part of this ruin is blown out while the right part is too dark in shadows. Also right side is not sharp enough. Maybe fixable. --Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Spichrz_w_Trzebieszowicach_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Granary in Trzebieszowice 2 by User:Jacek Halicki Boston9 19:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The left part of this ruin is blown out while the right part is too dark in shadows. Also right side is not sharp enough. Maybe fixable. --Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Lohagad_Fort_Tomb_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tomb atop Lohagad Fort --Rangan Datta Wiki 07:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 15:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weak sharpness --Jakubhal 15:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO not perferct, but sharp enough. --Plozessor 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, and shadows are too harsh. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor Юрий Д.К. 14:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --GRDN711 16:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jakubhal 04:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Snow_plough_simulator,_IAA_Open_Space_2025,_Ludwigstrasse,_Munich_(20250909-P1050567).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snow plough simulator of the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr at IAA Mobility 2025 in Munich --MB-one 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Should get cropped in order to focus on the main subject and maybe some rotation neccessary. --Mosbatho 18:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done cropped the top. Checked the perspective: no rotation necessary IMO. Thank you for your review and suggestions. --MB-one 06:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable. --Smial 12:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems okay to me.--Peulle 08:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree that cropping would help. Also the image overall seems dark and murky. Some tonal tweaking would improve it. --GRDN711 15:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done cropped even closer, raised the exposure and the shadows. Also refined the coordinates. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 08:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 09:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 18 Sep → Fri 26 Sep
  • Fri 19 Sep → Sat 27 Sep
  • Sat 20 Sep → Sun 28 Sep
  • 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