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]

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 June 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 June 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 June 29 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]] 17:32, 29 June 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).


June 29, 2026

[edit]

June 28, 2026

[edit]

June 27, 2026

[edit]

June 26, 2026

[edit]

June 25, 2026

[edit]

June 24, 2026

[edit]

June 23, 2026

[edit]

June 22, 2026

[edit]

June 21, 2026

[edit]

June 20, 2026

[edit]

June 19, 2026

[edit]

June 18, 2026

[edit]

June 15, 2026

[edit]

June 14, 2026

[edit]

June 10, 2026

[edit]

June 6, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:2_guepiers_de_Perse.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 guepiers de Perse sud tunisienMoi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été importée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Skander zarrad 09:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The left bird and branch blurry. May be ok cropped to show only the right bird. --Tagooty 09:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I find this gives depth of field and puts the bird in its environment. --JackyM59 09:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per JackyM59. --Harlock81 12:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 12:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Oberau_Mainaue_See-20260530-RM-160218.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mittelsee in the Mainaue Nature Reserve near Oberau in the Lichtenfels district --Ermell 14:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 09:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Purple CA's in upper right corner. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint.--Ermell 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Norra_Hamngatan_4-6_June_2026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Norra Hamngatan 4-6 in Gothenburg, Sweden. --ArildV 06:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 06:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Are the buildings falling down in reality? --Lvova 11:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    What are you referring to with "falling down"? --ArildV 07:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    Buildings are distorted as if they were falling, literally. Lvova 16:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult to find a horizontal line, if the buildings are tilted itself. -- XRay 15:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Check verticals. The lower part is 'closer' to us than the upper. Lvova 16:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Gothenburg is notorious for settlement problems affecting buildings in the city centre. The combination of soft clay, reclaimed land, and centuries of gradual ground settlement has caused many structures to shift over time. This image was taken with a high-quality lens that exhibits virtually no noticeable barrel distortion, so an uneven horizontal line is not caused by the camera or the lens (nor the photographer).--ArildV 16:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
      • The houses are apparently built on unstable ground. So I don't expect them to be straight up or down or level. -- XRay 17:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't find anything wrong with the picture. -- Alvesgaspar 15:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per Alvesgaspar. I see just and unsignificant tilt that is also convincingly justified by author. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Аскалаф пёстрый в Зааминском национальном парке.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ascalaf variegated. Zaamin National Park: Jizzakh Region, Zaamin District. -- 26D 06:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, sorry. --Lvova 11:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why is this beautiful insect not identified either in the image file or here? Category is hardly enough. -- ~~
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Cerfs_élaphes_el_Feija.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination cerfs élaphes femelles, el Feija Aïn Soltane Jandoub --Smailtn 08:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Where is the focus? --Lvova 11:29, 27 June 2026
    Where it should be - on the two animals on the right? --ArildV 06:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)(UTC)
    They are not in focus. Lvova 16:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good also for me. --Harlock81 07:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 16:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Petunia,_the_Bolshoi_Moskvoretsky_Bridge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Petunia, the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge --Юрий Д.К. 18:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I'm not so sure, the center of the flower is almost black. --ArildV 12:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 13:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. --ArildV 12:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, ArildV. Colors lоoks real for me. Also, the photo was taken in the evening, when the sun was quite low and not so bright, which may be why the center of the flower is dark. Юрий Д.К. 13:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate lighting, clipping colour channels. Why such high ISO setting? By doing so, you're giving up a significant portion of the dynamic range that a digital sensor like this is capable of capturing. --Smial 12:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 12:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Yellow-bellied_Prinia_in_Baruipur_October_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-bellied Prinia (Prinia flaviventris) in Baruipur, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 05:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution under 4 MPx -> image should be razor sharp, which it is not, I'm afraid. Sorry --Benjism89 05:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)@Benjism89:
  • Is the minimum requirement not 2 mp? - Tisha Mukherjee 08:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The subject is quite small and lacking detail. There are many better QIs with similar views of this species. --Tagooty 09:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Yes, the photo is relatively small, but I think the sharpness is good enough. I don't agree that the number of existing QIs has any bearing on a nomination. The photo should either stand or fall on its merits alone. Also disagree with the heuristic that candidates < 4 Megapixels should be scrutinized differently. The photo either meets the QI criteria or it does not. JMHO. Pdanese (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's not about having different criteria for 4 MPx pictures, it's about always checking sharpness on an image roughly the same size. Having a 24 MPx picture razor sharp at full size is almost impossible, and to the opposite, a lot of blurry pictures look perfectly fine at thumbnail size. I always judge sharpness in QIC with images the same size (2000x2000 or close to it) so that all images are treated equal. If you check all images at full size regardless of their size, then the best way to get your pictures promoted as QIs is to take small pictures ....--Benjism89 18:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Pdanese Jakubhal 04:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support We should stick to the guidelines, the photo is sharp enough. -- Alvesgaspar 16:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support "not easy to take", so good enough. Nice lighting and composition, colours appear realistic. --Smial 13:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Brown_Parrotbill_in_Darjeeling_May_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brown Parrotbill (Paradoxornis unicolor) in Darjeeling, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 05:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution under 4 MPx -> image should be razor sharp, which it is not, I'm afraid. Sorry --Benjism89 05:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Same reasons as outlined in other photo. Pdanese (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 04:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 12:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Un_corbeau_brun_dans_le_ciel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Un corbeau brun dans le cielMoi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été importée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Skander zarrad 19:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not in focus; it is one of the most important traits in animal photography. --Lvova 13:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support All parts of the bird are very sharp for BIF; good composition. --Tagooty 09:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very nice photo but the head is indeed too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 16:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 10:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Manhole_cover_in_Oulu_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Oulu --Lvova 13:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Skewed and unsharp - sorry! --Scotch Mist 08:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    Because of shadows and the size it was impossible to make from another angle, but I disagree about 'unsharp'. --Lvova 13:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's sharp enough but a bit too bright and also turned unpside down. Easy to fix (especially using the current version of Crop Tool)/ -- Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    • If you strongly prefer, I made 180 rotation (in the previous version of the tool it was better). But this manhole cover is 1,5x larger than usual, so no space to rotate. That is an imaginary ease. I’m no fool; if I say it’s impossible, a new version of the gadget won’t help at all. Being 2.5 meters tall would help; a drone would help; a different path of the sun would help. Advices about a gadget - don't. Lvova 11:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
      •  Weak support Yes, I prefer the inscriptions on manhole covers to be in a natural position, so thanks for the rotation. As for the gadget, it was just information. I don't care what kind of device users use to fix their photos. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a shot of a flat and radially symmetrical object, why is the framing not symmetrical too. ? -- Alvesgaspar 16:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Dried_Malva_sp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dried Malva sp--روتانا 13:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Beautiful and great background. --Zinnmann 16:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's beautiful. But nothing is in focus. Sorry!--26D 07:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above. Too shallow depth of field and very little in focus. Jakubhal 04:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF is very shallow indeed. In addition, I doubt that this is a Malva species. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 12:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:High_Alps_Landscape_Surkhan_State_Nature_Reserve.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An expansive high-altitude alpine landscape photograph of the Surkhan State Nature Reserve, focusing on the vast, pristine snowfields covering the mountainsides. Sunlight filtering through a high cloud ceiling illuminates the deep texture of the snow and rock.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Panpanchik 06:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. I love it --Lmbuga 07:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporary) Sorry, but there are two dust spots. I added a note. --Harlock81 12:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Giant's_Causeway_at_dusk_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Giant’s Causeway --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 05:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Beautiful picture. Good quality, could you please fix the slight tilt of the horizon ? --Benjism89 05:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I fixed the slight tilt of the horizon --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 06:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The ghosts are spoiling it. --Milseburg 16:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Ghosts are hard to avoid in such a long exposure picture, and the two most visible ones actually add something interesting to the composition IMO --Benjism89 17:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting photo --Юрий Д.К. 17:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg Jakubhal 11:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please get rid of the ghosts. I also deslike the too unnatural processing. -- Alvesgaspar 16:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Abduvohid_Nematov_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uzbek footballer Abduvohid Nematov -- Umarxon III 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 00:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Akmal_Mozgovoy_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uzbek footballer Akmal Mozgovoy -- Umarxon III 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 00:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background looks unsettling; it is neither fully blurred nor sharp, resulting in a poor depth of field. --Igor123121 22:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it would look better with stronger separation between the subject and the background, but it is good enough for QI --Jakubhal 04:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 12:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a lot of noise; even still elements lack the quality expected for IQ. --Igor123121 22:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Water droplets are not noise. Good enough for QI --Jakubhal 04:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 12:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Electric kick scooter near fountain of Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurry and crooked (see left side). --Igor123121 22:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The scooter itself is sharp enough. --Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The background may (or should) be unsharp, the scooter is sharp. -- XRay 07:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Very weak  Support (instead of neutral) Part of a good composition (and not just in my opinion) is that the background doesn’t distract the viewer. So the blur in the background isn’t distracting; rather, it enhances the composition. To be honest, I don’t think the cropped version is quite as good anymore. The scooter was positioned quite well within the two-thirds rule before, but not anymore. -- XRay 07:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I can upload the original version separately and nominate it again if the vertical version doesn't get the status in the end. This version is just about the scooter while the original version was about a crowded place that turned out to be deserted on a weekday morning. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per XRay. --Harlock81 15:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can crop the left side and make the image vertical for better representation of the scooter. What do you think? -- Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    Try it, please, but it is not strictly necessary for me. Thank you. --Harlock81 10:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    OK, will try it soon. ✓ Done -- Екатерина Борисова 04:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    Good, thanks. --Harlock81 06:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the background just behind the handlebar is distracting. -- Alvesgaspar 16:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:White_feathers_(Dandelion).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White feathers--روتانا 20:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Category of plant is needed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    I have added the category --روتانا 15:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you, but I'm not sure if it's a Taraxacum. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment No, it is not Taraxacum. It seems more probably Senecio. --Harlock81 10:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Senecio flowers? --روتانا 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    That is the fruit, but the species should be identified. If the picture has been taken in Kuwait, it could be Senecio glaucus (native) or Senecio vulgaris (introduced). To me, it seems S. vulgaris. However, it is not so simple to evaluate it just from a picture. If you have other pictures taken that day, you may use them to better identify the species.
    Also, the description of the image is poetic, but not descriptive enough of what is shown. --Harlock81 08:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Jrzego_w_Krajanowie_(10).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_77_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 06:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Вид_с_горнолыжного_комплекса_"Амирсой"_42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: View of the Ugam-Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. --Iplossusvulpes19 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 08:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky. And I have some doubts about WB. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The dust spots have been removed, and the white balance has been fixed as much as possible. Thanks for the review! Iplossusvulpes19 00:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Dust spots are gone, thanks, but I still have my doubts about WB. The "blue" version looked even better IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 12:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Вид_с_горнолыжного_комплекса_"Амирсой"_41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: View of the Ugam-Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. --Iplossusvulpes19 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 08:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky. And I have some doubts about WB. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The dust spots have been removed, and the white balance has been fixed as much as possible. Thanks for the review! Iplossusvulpes19 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Dust spots are gone, thanks, but I still have my doubts about WB. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 12:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_50_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_36.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_50_(3).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Tamka street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland, 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Wybrzeże Gdańskie street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 04:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part is blurry, also WB seems tio be not good here (purple tint). --Екатерина Борисова 03:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Something wrong with the sky (it may be a white balance problem or other camera settings). Imho quite sharp. But the resolution is strange. I've noticed that you use Sony α6400 with 6000×4000 px sensor, here only 4,000 × 2,666. Other camera, downscaled or cropped? Юрий Д.К. 13:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 12:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 21 Jun → Mon 29 Jun
  • Mon 22 Jun → Tue 30 Jun
  • Tue 23 Jun → Wed 01 Jul
  • Wed 24 Jun → Thu 02 Jul
  • Thu 25 Jun → Fri 03 Jul
  • Fri 26 Jun → Sat 04 Jul
  • Sat 27 Jun → Sun 05 Jul
  • Sun 28 Jun → Mon 06 Jul
  • Mon 29 Jun → Tue 07 Jul