Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 03 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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


August 3, 2026

[edit]

August 2, 2026

[edit]

August 1, 2026

[edit]

July 31, 2026

[edit]

July 30, 2026

[edit]

July 29, 2026

[edit]

July 28, 2026

[edit]

July 27, 2026

[edit]

July 26, 2026

[edit]

July 25, 2026

[edit]

July 24, 2026

[edit]

July 23, 2026

[edit]

July 22, 2026

[edit]

July 21, 2026

[edit]

July 20, 2026

[edit]

July 19, 2026

[edit]

July 10, 2026

[edit]

July 5, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:Rosa_August_2026-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a rose. -- Alvesgaspar 16:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too noise and nosense B&W for this kind of photos --Ezarate 17:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info A denoised version was uploaded. This kind of "nonsense" comments should be avoided here. -- Alvesgaspar 18:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info It should go to CR section since the author doesn't agree with the review. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)


File:East_face_of_Jiujiu_Peaks.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination East face of Jiujiu Peaks in central Taiwan. --Tiouraren 16:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice landscape, but nothing is in focus here, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова: no part of the picture is sharp enough for QI --Sandro Halank 10:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Sandro Halank: The image was already in focus, and I have uploaded a sharpened version with Sharpen and Shake Reduction filters applied. --Tiouraren 16:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support the very first version, though I don't understand the high ISO setting. I don't like sharpening artifacts. --Smial 07:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
    • @Smial: The initially nominated version had actually been sharpened and was sharp enough to me, but since it was not considered sharp enough, I applied additional filters to make it even sharper. This image was a combination of ±2 EV bracketing, and the raw frames were captured under 105 mm without a tripod, so I applied ISO-640 to avoid motion blur. --Tiouraren (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Weak  Support. Thanks for the detailed explanation. While I remain convinced that it would have worked at ISO 200—resulting in slightly less image noise and consequently less post-processing effort—I don't want to downvote the image, given its appealing composition, lighting, and beautiful colors. In any case, thanks to the high resolution, the image is good enough to meet my notorious A4 print size criterion. --Smial 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
@Smial: Appreciate the support. And yes, a lower ISO setting should have worked better. Please feel free to let me know if there is any space for improvement. --Tiouraren 13:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tiouraren 13:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Бабочка_Репейница._Урочище_Кокесем,_Устюртский_заповедник.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painted lady on creeping thistle flowers. Utyurt sanctuary, Karakiya District, Mangystau Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Максат79 --Красный 08:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Rohit14400 08:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  for now The plant was misidentified. This is something from the Carduoideae, but probably not a thistle and certainly not Cirsium arvense --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
    Upped a category to Carduoideae. Красный 09:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Prefecture_de_Police_at_Site_central_de_Gesvres,_Paris_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prefecture de Police at Site central de Gesvres, Paris --I.Mahesh 05:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose And what about this one also nominated : File:Prefecture de Police at Site central de Gesvres, Paris.jpg. This one is the same but with a crop. I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Mairie_de_Pecquencourt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mairie de Pecquencourt --JackyM59 10:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 12:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting. Facade shows to south but is in shadow at evening. --Fl.schmitt 17:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Brest_Kujbyšava_str_5_Barn_2024-09-18_3736.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kujbyšava str 5 house, Brest. --Mike1979 Russia 06:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject partly shadowed, thus unfavorable lighting. --Fl.schmitt 17:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. A building doesn't have to be fully illuminated, and sometimes it's even impossible. Overall, it's a pretty nice photo. --Юрий Д.К. 23:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadows are not disturbing at all. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Upper_levels_of_Aux_Tours_de_Notre_Dame,_Rue_d'Arcole,_Paris.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Upper levels of Aux Tours de Notre Dame, Rue d'Arcole, Paris --I.Mahesh 03:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Doesn't show entire building (first floor cropped), disturbing shadow --Fl.schmitt 08:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Fl.schmitt 08:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
     Info You cannot vote both for and against an image. I removed your first vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 17:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 00:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no shadow, so I think that Fl.schmitt' comment was about nearby image. This one looks good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Pałac_w_Sarnach_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sarny Palace by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 17:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, overexposed --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 17:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support This is bright, not overexposed, this is a natural result when we have sun on a white facade. Very good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 20:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_-_Paesaggio_lungo_la_strada_di_Pentedattilo_-_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melito di Porto Salvo (Calabria, Italy) - Landscape with Pentedattilo in the background on the left --Benjism89 07:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Main subject unclear, landscape unspecific --Fl.schmitt 15:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Pictures of landscapes and cityscapes never have a subject as clear as, say, pictures of birds or buildings. However, here, I believe I did a good job here, with a foreground point of interest at the bottom right and another in the background at the top left --Benjism89 04:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- JackyM59 07:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, image is perfectly usable in Wikipedia. Юрий Д.К. 13:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_-_Ferrovia_Jonica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melito di Porto Salvo (Calabria, Italy) - The Ionian railway ine the commune --Benjism89 05:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Distrcting building in background center - unfortunate composition --Fl.schmitt 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Disagree --Benjism89 04:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO composition is very good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- JackyM59 07:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_-_Paesaggio_lungo_la_strada_di_Pentedattilo_-_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melito di Porto Salvo (Calabria, Italy) - The first hills of the Aspromonte, seen from the Pentedattilo road, with bergamot trees and olive trees in the foreground --Benjism89 05:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Main subject unclear, ugly fence in foreground lower left. Tilted??? --Fl.schmitt 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • For the same reason as above, a landscape with multiple layers is a subject. + not tilted --Benjism89 04:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Come on... Look at the buildings at left. They are verticals. The only issue could be a better focus on the background. But this picture is absolutely QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support For me sharpness/details could be better, but still good enough. Not tilted, and I have no problem with fence Jakubhal 20:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_-_Paesaggio_lungo_la_strada_di_Pentedattilo_-_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melito di Porto Salvo (Calabria, Italy) - The first hills of the Aspromonte, seen from the Pentedattilo road, with bergamot trees in the foreground and olive trees behind --Benjism89 05:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Seems to be heavily tilted. What's the *main* subject? --Fl.schmitt 14:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • As above --Benjism89 04:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Come on... Look at the buildings at left. They are verticals. The only issue could be a better focus on the background. But this picture is absolutely QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kamieniec_Ząbkowicki,_ul._Złotostocka_27_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 27 Złotostocka Street in Kamieniec Ząbkowicki by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 17:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lighting detrimental (main subject in shadow), interfering details (cars in foreground) --Fl.schmitt 14:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 17:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Goog quality -- JackyM59 07:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok Jakubhal 20:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technical quality is OK, but the composition is messy and this white car is badly deformed. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sunlit parts on the facade left side overexposed/clipping. Weird greenish tint in the sky, even in the far background. Oversaturated. --Smial 07:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Yichuan_River,_Yushe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dong He (East River / Yichuan River) in Yushe County, Shanxi Province, China. --HerryCFPL 02:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and noisy smartphone picture. Would also need perspective correction. --Plozessor 03:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    No retouching on this picture. Its colors and noise are totally fine. Buildings look slanted visually because of different floor counts, terrain and the curved river. The vertical poles show the camera is steady; perspective correction is not required. --HerryCFPL 04:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I did not complain about "retouching" but about overprocessing (probably done by the smartphone), referring to sharpening, noise reduction and all the things that software does to noisy raw sensor data. And "the vertical poles" are not vertical and all the buildings are leaning out. --Plozessor 03:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion and  Level of detail too low Jakubhal 05:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 07:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Avignon_-_Jardin_du_rocher_des_Doms_-_Vénus_aux_Hirondelles_(Félix_Charpentier)_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Venus statue --Romainbehar 06:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The statue itself is perfect, but this burnt sky is too prominent. Maybe you should try to crop out the sky, just above the statue, and a bit at the bottom as well to balance ? --Benjism89 17:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    I darkened the background to avoid burning it, and cropped bottom and top. --Romainbehar 18:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    (temporary  Oppose) I would crop more at the top. Unfortunately, you can make the sky look less bright by darkening it but you can't get back the burnt details (branches and leaves) --Benjism89 07:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 07:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Lobularia_maritima_in_Tsaritsyno_Park2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Lobularia maritima in Tsaritsyno Park --Юрий Д.К. 23:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 00:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition, sorry. --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose composition does not help --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    duplicate. --Harlock81 10:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Юрий Д.К.: May you try a crop? --Harlock81 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Юрий Д.К. 10:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, my mistake. I would had removed from the original picture only the upper and right-hand side parts, but not the sidewalk. You may perform some attemps, and choose the one that most satisfy you. --Harlock81 12:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I've cropped the original and removed some land on the left. I like this variant. Opinions? Юрий Д.К. 16:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. I find it satisfactory. Good quality according to me. --Harlock81 07:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Tsaritsyno_Search_and_Rescue_Station.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Tsaritsyno Search and Rescue Station --Юрий Д.К. 23:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 00:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights in the sky especially clouds --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I see no any blown highlights on the photo. What wrong with the clouds? Юрий Д.К. 10:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problems. -- JackyM59 12:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per @JackyM59: - Tisha Mukherjee 05:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Frederiksborg_park_2024_171215653.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frederiksborg palace garden, Denmark. --Pibwl 20:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Tilted horizon ? --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilted, fixable Юрий Д.К. 13:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-01-23_Eberspächer_Luge_World_Cup_2025-26_–_Oberhof_II_–_Women's_Singles_World_Cup_by_Sandro_Halank–115.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eberspächer Rodel-Weltcup 2025/26, Oberhof II – Einsitzer der Frauen – Claus Lufen (ARD) --Sandro Halank 18:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Overexposed slightly ? --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know why it's here, there's no discussion and no votes. The image looks good IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Pałac_w_Sarnach_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sarny Palace by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 17:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, sorry --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. I see no typical blown-out parts, which are signs of overexpose. Юрий Д.К. 13:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Streetscape_of_Rue_de_la_Montagne_junction.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Streetscape of Rue de la Montagne junction --I.Mahesh 15:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 19:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky and agressive cropping of the street --Pierre5018 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Sky is OK for me, but I'm not sure about the composition Юрий Д.К. 13:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Kosocicka_street,,._2026,_Kraków.,_Poland,_Bieżanów.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kosocicka street,, 2026, Kraków., Poland, Bieżanów --Igor123121 00:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Downscaled, needs PC. --Smial 13:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition per rules. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I have never fully understood this. That is probably because I do not have a good command of the language.--Agnes Monkelbaan 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
PC is perspective correction. Or did I misunderstand the question? --Smial 17:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't understand "Downscaled".--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
It betsjut dat de ôfbylding mei opsetsin nei in lytser formaat skale is, wat yn striid is mei de oanbefellings fan Commons. Mooglik is dat dien om technyske problemen yn de folsleine ferzje te ferbergjen, lykas chromatyske aberraasje. Trouwens, der rint op it stuit in diskusje oer de nominaasjes en beoardielingen fan Igor. Dy diskusje rekket dy yndirekt, om’t Igor dyn foto’s promovearret, mooglik sûnder se goed te kontrolearjen, as in foarm fan wjersidigens sa’t hy dy sels liket te begripen. --Jakubhal 11:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Tankewol foar dyn útlis. Yn 't algemien tink ik dat syn foto's goed binne, en ik kin net witte oft se mei opsetsin yn grutte fermindere binne.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Smial: @Jakubhal: I am amazed at how easily some users accuse other volunteers. All it took was to look at the EXIF data to see that the photo was taken with an 18 mm lens, so it makes sense that it was heavily cropped at the bottom; otherwise, 70 percent of the perspective would have been taken up by asphalt.--Igor123121 16:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Igor123121: I am not voting on this nomination. I was only explaining what “downscaling” means. I therefore do not understand why you chose to address me personally. I have no desire to review this photograph.-- Jakubhal 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
@Igor123121: So, you’re trying to tell me that the original photo was shot in portrait orientation and you cropped off 70% from the bottom? Aside from the fact that the camera sensor's native resolution would have miraculously increased in that scenario, I’m afraid I have to stand by my negative vote; such flawed technique means the shot cannot serve as a good example for inexperienced photographers. My advice: when shooting landscapes like this, you should hold the camera in landscape orientation. --Smial 22:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Pharaoh_Eagle-Owl_4.jpg

[edit]

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Peter_Garrett_at_the_AUKUS_Public_Inquiry_–_Adelaide_First_Nations_Yarn_(028A8849).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peter Garrett at the AUKUS Public Inquiry – Adelaide First Nations Yarn. --Pangalau 05:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Gower 18:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree --HerryCFPL 03:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed support per rules. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough Jakubhal 05:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    Indoor lighting limits sharpness. The facial focus is accurate. Too much sharpness looks unnatural for portraits. The image quality is acceptable. --HerryCFPL 05:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even taking into account poor indoor lighting, the portrait is not sharp enough for QI, particularly given that the subject did not move much during the photo being taken. --Sandro Halank 11:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 11:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Stacja_kolejowa_Henryków_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Henryków train station --Jacek Halicki 07:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 12:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These pieces of cars in bottom right spoil the image IMO. At least the very right one could be harmlessly cropped. --Екатерина Борисова 23:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Екатерина Борисова: @Harlock81: ✓ DoneThe man who's bothering Harlock81 is my drone spotter. I have a mobility impairment and I pilot the drone from inside my car. His job is to keep an eye on the drone for any wires or other obstacles. --Jacek Halicki 06:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    OK, but I still suggest to crop the right part somehow. There're no cars now, but this empty space makes the image unbalanced. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Question Isn't filming, photographing, or flying drones over railway facilities in Poland prohibited? To the best of my knowledge, there are also restrictions regarding the people depicted. --Smial 09:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
     Info In general, photographing railway facilities is legal unless a particular site is designated as strategically important. In that case, it must be marked with a special sign like the one shown in this document, and taking photographs may even result in arrest. This small station is not a strategic site :) Jakubhal 12:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
     Info In August 2025 the law was changed and only military or special service objects can't be photographed (but even if, it might be a problem of a photographer only, but such photographs would not be banned). Pibwl 21:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. Also the man worryingly looking at the camera spoils it. --Harlock81 09:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems that Jacek retouched the image, probably using AI. At first glance, the picture looks better, but I remember that the previous case raised numerous objections, so I'm not sure if I should remove my opposing vote above. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a photographer's bad luck, but and ideal shot of such a building would have been without these cars. Also, I believe we should not remove objects from quality images (unless it is a water or sky). Pibwl 21:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 07:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 26 Jul → Mon 03 Aug
  • Mon 27 Jul → Tue 04 Aug
  • Tue 28 Jul → Wed 05 Aug
  • Wed 29 Jul → Thu 06 Aug
  • Thu 30 Jul → Fri 07 Aug
  • Fri 31 Jul → Sat 08 Aug
  • Sat 01 Aug → Sun 09 Aug
  • Sun 02 Aug → Mon 10 Aug
  • Mon 03 Aug → Tue 11 Aug