Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 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 November 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 November 19 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]] 06:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).

November 19, 2025

[edit]

November 18, 2025

[edit]

November 17, 2025

[edit]

November 16, 2025

[edit]

November 15, 2025

[edit]

November 14, 2025

[edit]

November 13, 2025

[edit]

November 12, 2025

[edit]

November 11, 2025

[edit]

November 10, 2025

[edit]

November 9, 2025

[edit]

November 8, 2025

[edit]

November 7, 2025

[edit]

November 6, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 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:Beaune_-_Hôtel-Dieu_-_Parement_d'autel_de_l'Agneau_Mystique.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beaune (Côte-d'Or, France) - Hôtel-Dieu (former hospital) - The Mystic Lamb antependium, 15th century --Benjism89 06:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose insufficient quality, color noise, partial lack of sharpness, sorry --Gower 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    In my opinion noise and sharpness are acceptable here, taking this to CR --Benjism89 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 23:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Beaune_-_Hôtel-Dieu_-_Tenture_de_Saint-Éloi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beaune (Côte-d'Or, France) - Hôtel-Dieu (former hospital) - Central part of the tapestry of Saint Eligius, 16th century --Benjism89 06:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pixel erros/artifacts in the dark areas, especially at the upper left. --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose insufficient quality, color noise, sorry --Gower 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs : I'm not sure these were pixel errors but anyway, should be fixed now. @Gower : I believe sharpness and noise are more than acceptable at 2560x1280px, you can even see a lot of weaving lines. Of course, this is not noiseless and perfectly sharp at full 6 696×3 348 size, but most images promoted here are not, even those taken outside under a blue sky --Benjism89 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Gower, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 23:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Figura_ornamental_de_Mariposa_MG_4484.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Decorative arts: butterfly figure, Maracaibo. --Rjcastillo 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus. --Plozessor 04:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)✓ Done Please new version. --Rjcastillo 02:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Егорова,_18_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower part of listed building (bottom-up view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    how about PC? --Gower 16:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    How about reading the description carefully? --Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I don't understand what is your point about the description (where I corrected a typo). Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    I meant that this is the tower of a tall building photographed from the ground, it is mentioned in the description, and it is a perspective view that, in my opinion, does not require further straightening. There is another photo of the same tower, also a perspective view, and it has been approved. Gower's photo was approved today, where the tower, also taken from below, is also not vertical. I can find many more similar photos. In this regard, your claims are not very clear to me. --Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Flur_im_Neuen_Rathaus_Leipzig.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corridor with vaulted ceiling at New Town Hall in Leipzig. --Augustgeyler 08:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Noticeable color noise as for ISO 200. --Gower 10:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I tried to reduce the noise. It comes from exposure correction in post, when I hat to balance the very bright light with the relatively dark room. --Augustgeyler 15:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for noise reduction, but I'm still not convinced if it's QI quality. Let others decide. --Gower 20:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
     OK, let's see more opinions --Augustgeyler 08:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough, per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 00:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I disagree. Please discuss. --Augustgeyler 10:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bytom_Assumption_church_confessional.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bytom, Assumption, church; space under matroneum. --Gower 14:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 15:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Front_view_of_Praça_de_Touros_do_Campo_Pequeno,_Campo_Pequeno,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Front view of Praça de Touros do Campo Pequeno, Campo Pequeno, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 19:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wonderful view at first sight, but it has its issues. According to other photos in the category, it can be concluded that the domes of the building are shaped like a ball, but here they have any shape, but not spherical. It looks quite ugly. --Екатерина Борисова 00:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good point, I'll work on a non-linear perspective correction to see if I can get back to spherical domes --Julesvernex2 12:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done That definetaley looks better, thanks for the feedback, Catherine! --Julesvernex2 18:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting (or just an inconvenient time of the day for such a picture). Sky is bright, one wall in foreground is bright and sunlight, but 90 % of the subject is in shadow. --Plozessor 04:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_in_Leyte_Island,_Philippines.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An aerial view taken above Leyte, the Philippines in a Philippine Airlines aircraft. --TheNuggeteer 13:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Earth605 18:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is some noise in the darker areas, slight chromatic aberration along the wing edges, and a few smudges caused by the airplane window --Jakubhal 05:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Jakubhal: I have attempted to fix the issues; kindly take a look. TheNuggeteer 13:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    Looks better with CAs issues, but still too much noise in the darker parts of the ground --Jakubhal 16:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Jakubhal: Fixed again, what do you think? TheNuggeteer 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    Right now the photo shows some noise (a bit smudged) and it's also not fully sharp. I'm sorry, but I think it would be very difficult - if not impossible - to fix. It's understandably hard to get a technically strong shot through an airplane window. I see that the first positive vote gave you some hope for promotion, but in my opinion the image is still far from QI standards, and I don't think an experienced reviewer would assess it that way. Of course, I may be wrong - let's wait for more opinions. Jakubhal 07:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but far from QI. Basically it's some very blurry clouds, a few blurry structures of unclear origin, and a slightly blurry aircraft wing. --Plozessor 04:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Barbudo_cabecirrojo_(Trachyphonus_erythrocephalus),_parque_nacional_de_Tarangire,_Tanzania,_2024-05-24,_DD_70.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-and-yellow barbet (Trachyphonus erythrocephalus), Tarangire National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 08:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I understand this bird was really far (600 mm and small res suggesting cropping), but the result is not sharp enough IMO, sorry --Benjism89 09:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I gave it a try, what do you think? --Poco a poco 18:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    I still believe it's not sharp enough for a less than for 4 MPx image, sorry --Benjism89 07:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question The right-hand foot doesn't seem natural. Please, may you check if it is the result of the image processing? --Harlock81 09:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tsessebes_comunes_(Damaliscus_lunatus),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_54.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Topis (Damaliscus lunatus), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 15:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, I made some improvements, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tsessebes_comunes_(Damaliscus_lunatus),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_55.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Topis (Damaliscus lunatus), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 15:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, I made some improvements, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Katowicka_60_facade_2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chorzów, 60 Katowicka Street. --Gower 14:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The image looks slightly  Underexposed. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 15:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done? @Augustgeyler: thanks for your review, new version with +0,3 EV uploaded. How now? --Gower 15:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done? @Augustgeyler: , thanks, new version uploaded. How it looks now? --Gower 15:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but it still looks underexposed in the shadows. --Augustgeyler 09:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: thanks, how now? Shadows reduced --Gower 10:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be slightly sharper, but still a very good image. --Plozessor 04:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tortuga_gigante_de_Aldabra_(Aldabrachelys_gigantea),_isla_Changuu,_Tanzania,_2024-05-31,_DD_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea), Changuu Island, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Motion blur, even on the head. --Sebring12Hrs 22:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, please, have a look. --Poco a poco 18:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Quedlinburg,_Rathaus,_Portal_(November_2022).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to the town hall in Quedlinburg --Romzig 16:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted and borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 19:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Both probably fixable with better raw conversion (with sharpening and correct lens profile). --Plozessor 04:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Leipzig,_monumentale_panden_op_de_Markt_met_Dm09298342tm44_en_Dm09298286_IMG_6898_2025-05-11_10.42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Leipzig in Germany-SN, monumental buildings at the Markt --Michielverbeek 11:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Missing sharpness on the left side. But overall OK. --Augustgeyler 13:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, but I will not support, sorry. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 19:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite blurry at the left and right edge and not even perfectly sharp in the middle. --Plozessor 04:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Szarlejka_Piekary_Slaskie.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Szarlejka stream in Poland, Piekary Śląskie --Gower 14:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 19:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit blurry and also underexposed, probably fixable with better raw conversion. (Also invalid EXIF data claiming f/0.) --Plozessor 04:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
 Comment thanks for the reviews, f/0 is due using manual lens without connectors here. --Gower 10:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Black-throated_Sunbird_in_Kolakham_March_2024_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black-throated Sunbird (Aethopyga saturata) male in Kolakham, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment CAs under the chest, otherwise good --Benjism89 10:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to take this to CR for this matter, but please fix the pink CA under the chest that I mentioned before --Benjism89 19:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Tisha Mukherjee: CA to fix as Benjism89 wrote. --Gower 10:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Prelates_House,_4_Mariacki_Square,_facade,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prelates House, 4 Mariacki square, facade, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Random composition (or bad crop). --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. I would like to discuss this. --Igor123121 18:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. Additionally too intense PC resulting in strange proportions. --August (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plozessor (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Erpel-Grugapark-Herbst-2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A male mallard on the pond Magarethensee at Grugapark in Essen takes off in flight amid an autumn atmosphere. --Tuxyso 09:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced, sorry. Mallard isn't very detailed and it takes small part of that picture. --Gower 10:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please discuss, the mellard is one Part of the Overall composition. --Tuxyso 13:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Firstly, the mallard is not taking off, so the description is wrong. Secondly, the image is not sharp enough. I think you need a higher shutter speed for an image like this.--Peulle 13:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 23:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Javier_Bello_at_the_2025_Beach_Volleyball_World_Championships_-_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Javier Bello at the 2025 Beach Volleyball World Championships --Pangalau 04:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The foreign hair in the foreground is not suitable for such portraits. Please discuss.--Milseburg 09:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Milseburg. --E bailey 19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 23:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Gletscher_004_2014_08_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The glaciers Königswandferner and Suldenferner with the Königspitze, seen from the Hintergrathütte (Rifugio alto del Coston) --F. Riedelio 16:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Great view, but unfortunately blurry. Fixable? --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not fixable IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 01:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New improved version. --F. Riedelio 07:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Completely overprocessed now, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • New improved version. Last attempt ;-) -- F. Riedelio • 💬 10:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, probably from wrong focus, IMO not fixable. --Plozessor 04:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful view, but per Plozessor --Gower 10:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 10:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Ołdrzychowice_Kłodzkie,_ul._Kłodzka_65_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 65 Kłodzka Street in Ołdrzychowice by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 12:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Warning sign unsigned nomination --Augustgeyler 13:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support signature is now there. Good quality. --August (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Jacare,_Cabedelo_(20150802-DSC05529).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset over Rio Paraíba in Cabedelo, Brazil --MB-one 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Green reflection of the sun (I think) almost in the centre of the image --Lmbuga 17:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you wish, I don't think it would be difficult for me to remove it.--Lmbuga 18:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done lens flare removed --MB-one 21:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: Please, check your comment. I suppose that you are supporting, not opposing. --Harlock81 06:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oops! --Plozessor 11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Ołdrzychowice_Kłodzkie,_ul._Kłodzka_65_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Ołdrzychowice_Kłodzkie,_ul._Kłodzka_65_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 65 Kłodzka Street in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--~~~~
  • Discussion
  •  Support Very good perspective. --Augustgeyler 12:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 14:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Warning sign unsigned nomination --Augustgeyler 13:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Already promoted (see archive page). -- Екатерина Борисова 01:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 23:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Ołdrzychowice_Kłodzkie,_ul._Kłodzka_65_(3).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Ołdrzychowice_Kłodzkie,_ul._Kłodzka_20_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Pałac_Oppersdorfóww_w_Ołdrzychowicach_Kłodzkich_(04).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Wörlitz_Schloss_(September_2023)_8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wörlitz Castle --Romzig 20:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The right wall of the castle is leaning to the left. PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 15:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. I've uploaded a new version. --Romzig 17:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Aaahh, a bit too much to the other side now, when I look the windows at left... --Sebring12Hrs 17:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version. --Romzig 18:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 19:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To dark shadows here. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 01:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version. --Romzig 08:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadow textures are now overprocessed. Look at the grass. --Sebring12Hrs 19:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have reset the version. --Romzig 20:41, 16 November 2025(UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 06:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Convent_of_the_Jesuits,_8a_Sienna_street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Convent of the Jesuits, 8a Sienna street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 09:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very, nice, but could you crop until the pipe? The door and the semi cropped windows on the right side is budging --Earth605 06:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 11:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the image suffers from an unsuitable crop at the lower edge: the building is cut off just above ground level, and the car is also truncated. In addition, the photograph was taken from an unfavourable angle and then corrected very strongly, both vertically and especially horizontally. This has resulted in noticeably distorted window reveals on the ground floor. It was taken from a not centred angle but tries to achieve this in post. --Augustgeyler 01:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose doesn't achieve this image guideline for composition: The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. --E bailey 19:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 23:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ave_Al_Eucalyptus_Rabat_Nov25_A7CR_08918.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Avenue Al Eucalypthus, eucalyptus trees on right, Rabat, Morocco --Tagooty 09:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment As far as I know, washed out license plates are not welcome here. --Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Blanking the license plate is frequently done in Commons --Tagooty 08:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • If you agree with "them", please decline the image so I can send it to CR. Otherwise, please review the quality. --Tagooty 04:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure, so I oppose temporarily in order to hear the opinions of others in CR section. If they say it's not critical, I'll remove my opposing vote. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Blanking license plates is commonly done for privacy purposes. --Tagooty 04:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. I’m not aware of any rule stating that obscuring faces or number plates a) violates Commons policy or b) goes against the criteria for QI. I have quite a few QIs myself that include this kind of obscuring. --Augustgeyler 10:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I remember how several photos with specially blurred faces or obscured number plates were declined, so I think there is a reason to discuss this case. The rules of QI project do not describe many cases that we encounter in practice, so it would be good to have some kind of consensus about this one. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Buildings are a bit leaning to me, like on the other one. If you correct, I will support ;) --Sebring12Hrs 19:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Sebring12Hrs: Corrected building verticals. Lamp post on left I believe is actually not vertical. --Tagooty 03:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 06:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2021_Ferrari_Monza_SP2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2021 Ferrari Monza SP2 --TTTNIS 14:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Disctracting background --Gower 07:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For me thats a QI - background not really distracting. --Alexander-93 13:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Alexander. --Plozessor 04:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:J35_530_ČSSR-Grenzsäule.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Czechoslovak border post. By User:Falk2 --Augustgeyler 08:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Average texture as for Canon EOS 5D Mark III --Gower 10:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. There is plenty of texture at the object. --Augustgeyler 15:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tejedor_búfalo_de_cabeza_blanca_(Dinemellia_dinemelli),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_63.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White-headed buffalo weaver (Dinemellia dinemelli), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Wonderful bird, but most of it is unsharp. --Gower 08:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Have you read this: COM:QICGVP (especially #4), please, think about it. Why the rush? --Poco a poco 21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: yes, I have. I don't believe that significant unsharpness can be solved in any way except making a new photo of something, sorry. --Gower 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with Gower in this case. The head is in focus and very good, but the body is completely blurry, which means that the center of the image and the conspicuous red feathers are also blurred. I also cannot understand what could be changed about this. Sorry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question I couldn't follow, sorry. Do you believe that it isn't a QI because the head is behind the body? Not sure whether I would consider such an argument valid Poco a poco 19:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
     Comment No, of course not. BTW, you got three QIs for photos of the same species today, among which there is File:Tejedor búfalo de cabeza blanca (Dinemellia dinemelli), parque nacional Serengueti, Tanzania, 2024-05-26, DD 72.jpg. However, File:Tejedor búfalo de cabeza blanca (Dinemellia dinemelli), parque nacional Serengueti, Tanzania, 2024-05-26, DD 71.jpg with the head in front is actually much better IMO, which might have been the reason for nominating it a long time before the other photos.
    My opposing vote is for the completely blurry body of the bird, even at 2,560 × 1,707 pixels. The bird looks also quite noisy in spite of your denoising, which can be seen easily on the red feathers in full resolution. You take lots of great photographs, but I am afraid that this is just not among your best photos, no matter whether it gets assigned the QI template or not. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are in focus. un-sharp body is adding to the depth of scene. --Augustgeyler 09:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support In wildlife photography the important is to have the eye in focus, which is the case here -- Giles Laurent 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the head and one foot are in focus, the rest of the bird is not slightly blurred but completely oof. This could have been avoided for example with higher f-number and longer exposure than 1/500s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plozessor (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • And what shutter speed do you recommend when using a 300mm telelens? Poco a poco 18:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • That depends on lens type, sensor size and whether there is an image stabilizer. You know your equipment better than me and probably you're right that more than 1/500s wasn't possible. Still I don't think that this is a QI with the majority of the bird extremely blurry. --Plozessor 04:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Autun_-_Fontaine_Saint-Lazare_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autun (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Saint Lazarus fountain --Benjism89 06:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It is leaning a little to the right (see also the door in the background) and the background with the constraction works is distrecting. Why f13 at 38mm? --JoachimKohler-HB 10:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I edited perspective, so that most elements look straight. But as in many old places, not all buildings and structures are straight in reality --Benjism89 18:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO --Lmbuga 22:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the upper half of the fountain is unsharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is acceptable, but concluding from the background, the image seems really leaning to the right. I can't believe that the the lamp post, the metal gate, the tree behind the gate, the door behind the gate, and the bollard are all leaning in reality. --Plozessor 05:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe you're right, but if I edit the picture the way you suggest, then the fountain itself will be leaning (to the left). --Benjism89 09:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, in reality it seems to be leaning, if you check other pictures or Streetview. --Plozessor 11:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, I gave it a third try. Now the lamp post on the right is perfectly straight. I also slightly sharpened the top of the fountain. --Benjism89 18:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, acceptable now! --Plozessor 14:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable light situation, distracting background.--Milseburg (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Rotterdam,_de_Hef_RM513922_vanaf_de_Stieltjesstraat_IMG_0390_2025-09-13_22.07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rotterdam-NL, monumental railway bridge (de Hef) from the Stieltjesstraat --Michielverbeek 06:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 10:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Not the best composition, but I think it is sharp enough an can be QI. --Augustgeyler 09:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Questionable composition and sharpness. Would probably support if at least the full bridge was visible. --Plozessor 05:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting view but significant problems with bridge sharpness --Gower 10:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 10:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bolghar_Cathedral_Mosque_Minaret_Interior_2024-07-12_1089.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Interior of the Minaret of the Cathedral mosque, Bolghar. --Mike1979 Russia 09:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 19:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough IMO. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The outside is quite rich, but inevitably not very sharp. The effect is that you would like to get more details, but you can't. --Harlock81 10:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Since the subject of the nomination is the minaret rather than its background, it seems sufficient to me that the focus is on the structure itself. The minaret is well captured. It would certainly be nice to see a bit more detail in the distance, but that becomes a matter of style and personal preference. --Augustgeyler 10:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough indeed, interesting anyway --Gower 11:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment From a formal point of view, I can’t agree with the call for more background sharpness. The title of the nomination clearly states “Interior of the Minaret”, and that is exactly what is shown in sharp detail. --Augustgeyler 10:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 06:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 11 Nov → Wed 19 Nov
  • Wed 12 Nov → Thu 20 Nov
  • Thu 13 Nov → Fri 21 Nov
  • Fri 14 Nov → Sat 22 Nov
  • Sat 15 Nov → Sun 23 Nov
  • Sun 16 Nov → Mon 24 Nov
  • Mon 17 Nov → Tue 25 Nov
  • Tue 18 Nov → Wed 26 Nov
  • Wed 19 Nov → Thu 27 Nov