Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 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 February 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 February 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 February 10 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]] 11:49, 10 February 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).


February 10, 2026

[edit]

February 9, 2026

[edit]

February 8, 2026

[edit]

February 7, 2026

[edit]

February 6, 2026

[edit]

February 5, 2026

[edit]

February 4, 2026

[edit]

February 3, 2026

[edit]

February 2, 2026

[edit]

February 1, 2026

[edit]

January 31, 2026

[edit]

January 30, 2026

[edit]

January 26, 2026

[edit]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

January 24, 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. 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:Varese_-_Villa_Panza_1106.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Panza in Varese, Italy. --Phyrexian 14:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Coordinates would be fine. --Milseburg 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 16:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: I respect the opinion but I disagree, the vertical lines are just very little converging, and from this point of view having them totally straight would result in a weird deformation of the building, it's not a facade photograph. --Phyrexian 06:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The PC would be very easy to correct. PC should be done for that kind of architecture photo. You are far from the building. It's slightly titled, but our eyes see this. --Sebring12Hrs 06:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Navelina_oranges_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Navelina orange. --ArildV 14:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Strange textures in the foreground. --Sebring12Hrs 14:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version uploaded.--ArildV 14:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Arcimboldo_-_Les_saisons_-_L'hiver.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arcimboldo - Les saisons - L'hiver --JackyM59 10:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I replaced the file with my only successful shot at ISO 400 (1/5 s). Do you think it looks better? Thank you. --JackyM59 12:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Royal_bedroom_Salon_de_Mercure_Grand_appartement_du_roi_Palace_of_Versailles_France.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic front view of the royal bedroom in Salon de Mercure, Grand appartement du roi, in the Palace of Versailles, in France. Handheld camera (tripods not allowed inside). --Basile Morin 03:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but the edges are a bit too blurry for my taste. But what a pleasant surprise to see you on QIC, especially with photos of Versailles! --Sebring12Hrs 04:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the review. This room is very very dark, and absolutely full of visitors. Almost no space to stand for a long shooting session, especially not in the center where everybody want to stand. Moreover, tripods are unfortunately not allowed. The center is in focus I think. Please take a look at the Category:Salon de Mercure du Château de Versailles to compare (or on Wikipedia). To increase the difficulty, underexposure was necessary to avoid blown highlights. Note that I can create a cropped version to get rid of the corners and renominate such an alternative, but I find a shame to loose the content taken with an ultra-wide angle lens (11 mm focal length). -- Basile Morin 09:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kraków_Oleandry_schronisko_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oleandry Hostel in Kraków --Gower 16:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted building, not very sharp in central part of image and very blurry on both sides, also the shadows are too harsh. Far from QI in my eyes. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Euphorbia_pulcherrima_in_an_urban_garden,_Dhaka,_Bangladesh_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A view of Euphorbia pulcherrima (Poinsettia) leaves and bracts. The image displays the characteristic veined leaf structure and the central cyathia of the plant.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 international photographic contest. --A S M Jobaer 16:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  for now This is a plant from the Asteraceae, possibly a Cosmos, not an Euphorbia. Please correct the name, the caption and the description of this image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jaafar_Abdul_Aziz_-_53858155530.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jaafar Abdul Aziz attending His Majesty's 78th Birthday Celebration in 2024. --Pangalau 15:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quite noisy on the face and background --MB-one 15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 15:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But may be too noisy. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 02:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Funchal_(Madeira,_Portugal),_Praça_CR7_--_2025_--_1305.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weight on Christmas lights in the harbour, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal --XRay 06:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Crop: The subject, the weight, is relatively far at the bottom, could be cropped from the top --Aciarium 11:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think so. The weight is at about 1:2 and that's good - IMO. --XRay 09:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not QI to me per above --Aciarium 10:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. It's sharp and follows the rule of thirds. --XRay 16:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Catania_-_Teatro_Massimo_Vincenzo_Bellini_2119.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling detail in the Teatro Massimo Bellini in Catania, Italy. --Phyrexian 23:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 11:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop doesn't convince me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Catania_-_Teatro_Massimo_Vincenzo_Bellini_2120.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling detail in the Teatro Massimo Bellini in Catania, Italy. --Phyrexian 23:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The left/right crops feel too tight, but I'm only leaving a comment because others may disagree. --Pdanese 13:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 11:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Pdanese, in addition, sharpness is very borderline. --Sebring12Hrs 12:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Queen's_bedroom_Grand_appartement_de_la_reine_Palace_of_Versailles_France.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic front view of the queen's bedroom, Grand appartement de la reine, in the Palace of Versailles, in France. Handheld camera (tripods not allowed inside). --Basile Morin 03:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The outlines are too blurry, especially the ceiling and the chandeliers. --Sebring12Hrs 05:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the votes. This room is rather dark, and absolutely full of visitors. Almost no space to stand for a long shooting session, especially not in the center where everybody want to stand. Moreover, tripods are unfortunately not allowed. The center is in focus I think. Please take a look at the Category:Chambre de la reine du Château de Versailles to compare (or on Wikipedia). To increase the difficulty, underexposure was necessary to avoid blown highlights. Note that I can create a cropped version to get rid of the corners and renominate such an alternative, but I find a shame to loose the content taken with an ultra-wide angle lens (11 mm focal length). -- Basile Morin 09:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is indeed too soft, and the geometric correction is exaggerated imo.-- Alvesgaspar 21:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Building,_2_Piastów_square,_Gliwice,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building, 2 Piastów square, Gliwice, Poland --Igor123121 04:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization in the sky. --Sebring12Hrs 14:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_1_Rynek_square,_Gliwice,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 1 Rynek square, Gliwice, Poland --Igor123121 04:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization in the sky. --Sebring12Hrs 14:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Moulin_de_l'Aile_(59987).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moulin de l'Aile --JackyM59 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition but the image lacks detail and looks  Overprocessed. --Augustgeyler 19:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  implicit vote per rules Looks OK to me. Could you me more precisely? What looks overprocessed? --Tuxyso 21:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --George Chernilevsky 22:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine in full size. Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Milseburg 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Details are over-sharpened and over-contrasted. --Augustgeyler 21:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Taken with a smartphone, so it's indeed borderlien, but ok IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 08:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:École_maternelle_Anselme_Lesage.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination École maternelle Anselme Lesage --JackyM59 18:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 19:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  implicit vote per rules I disagree, the sky is overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The sky was overexposed (backlit) on the left but was immediately corrected using CR3. If I do more, I get strange colours in the sky. --JackyM59 19:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good imho Юрий Д.К. 16:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Torre_Eiffel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_158-160_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Benjism89: are you sure about that? I always though that the copyright violation only applies to the special light show in the night, not to the standard (and static) illumination (which is the case here). Poco a poco 12:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • According to the discussion in the deletion request, copyright is claimed on all night lightings of the Eiffel Tower. --Benjism89 17:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is a general view and de minimis works here (if just illuminating the tower with yellow creates a new copyright, I very doubt). Юрий Д.К. 16:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The tower is right in the center of the picture, the title of the file mentions the tower, definitely not de minimis. I do agree, though, that the company operating the Eiffel Tower has quite an extensive vision of copyright. But our goal, here, is to provide people with images they can use without the risk of being sued. The company operating the Eiffel Tower earns 1M€ a year with copyright fees : I believe it is likely they will sue anyone making significant money by using this picture commercially. --Benjism89 17:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Meiningen,_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Agatha_Dm65760_IMG_9445_2025-08-22_10.00.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Meiningen in Austria, catholic church: Pfarrkirche Sankt Agatha --Michielverbeek 06:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lower left part is un-sharp. Too intense distortion at the tower. --Augustgeyler 19:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't agree --Michielverbeek 20:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Vespasianus_in_Forum_Romanum_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Temple of Vespasianus – Forum Romanum in Rome, Lazio, Italy. --Tournasol7 01:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very blurry in bottom part --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's normal for DOF, the main object is in focus. --Tournasol7 12:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • OK, let's wait for some other review. --Екатерина Борисова 04:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It could be disturbing for some peaople but ok for others. I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Go to CR, because I think Catherine's comment could be understood as an implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 16:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment This might be possible, but your vote has been the only one so far. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment You're right, but once I voted "for" over a comment from Catherine and she didn't like it at all. So I don't know what to do in that case. --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose just to follow the procedure. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ardea_herodias_Balancan_2026-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ardea herodias in Balancan, Tabasco, Mexico: --Cvmontuy 13:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose very sorry, nice composition, but too much noise and lack of detail. white on head also appears to be "clipped." --Pdanese 17:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI IMO --Ermell 21:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it could be sharper and more detailed, but the composition is very good. -- Alvesgaspar 16:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far from QI to me. Artifacts visible. Not sharp to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Quality good enough IMO --Benjism89 11:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too noisy and blurry IMO, even though this is a nice composition. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Temple_Septimien_(Djemila)_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Septimien Temple, Djemila, Algeria --Bgag 03:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and quite low resolution. --Plozessor 04:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You're right. I have uploaded a new version. Please discuss. --Bgag 16:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, new version is good. I think no need to discuss then. --Plozessor 04:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the brightness, which I would reduce a bit -- Alvesgaspar 16:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still overprocessed in my opinion, with low level of real details --Benjism89 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good compostion. But per Benjism89: Over-sharpened and  Overprocessed. --Augustgeyler 19:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mgławica_Półksiężyc_NGC_6888.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cerscent Nebula (NGC 6888). By User:Wojciech Mazur --Gower 19:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so sharp, I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 13:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Roggenburg-Biberach,_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Sebastian_und_Ottilia_DmD-7-75-149-14_IMG_0210_2025-08-30_11.34.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Biberach in Germany-Bavaria, catholic church: Pfarrkirche Sankt Sebastian und Ottilia --Michielverbeek 16:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition. But the image ist lacking sharpness especially in the upper and right part. Additionally the level of detail is low. --Augustgeyler 19:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall unsharp. Alvesgaspar 11:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support By far sharp enough for an A4 size print. I see a photo here that has been carefully crafted to suit the diffuse lighting conditions and makes the most of the camera's capabilities. I am always very grateful when photos are not overly sharpened. --Smial 13:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Zamek_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(05).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ratno Dolne Castle 4 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The building is cut, it spoils the compo. --Sebring12Hrs 11:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: The main subject of the photo is the building itself, especially since the tower is being renovated and covered with scaffolding.--Jacek Halicki 13:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Jacek Halicki: That would not be an issue for me, if the Crop was tighter and if you could perform a slight perspective correction. --Aciarium 11:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Please disscusion --~~~~
  •  Comment Expand the image description, for example, with “South facade of the orangery ...”, then it will be fine ;-) --Smial 13:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
@Smial: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a very good shooting angle. The verticals are straightened, but nevertheless it looks like the building is about to fall to the right. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Radków,_pl._Rynek_20_(1).jpg

[edit]

@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Not ideal, but acceptable now, thanks. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 02 Feb → Tue 10 Feb
  • Tue 03 Feb → Wed 11 Feb
  • Wed 04 Feb → Thu 12 Feb
  • Thu 05 Feb → Fri 13 Feb
  • Fri 06 Feb → Sat 14 Feb
  • Sat 07 Feb → Sun 15 Feb
  • Sun 08 Feb → Mon 16 Feb
  • Mon 09 Feb → Tue 17 Feb
  • Tue 10 Feb → Wed 18 Feb