Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 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 January 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 January 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 January 31 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]] 02:54, 31 January 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).


January 31, 2026

[edit]

January 30, 2026

[edit]

January 29, 2026

[edit]

January 28, 2026

[edit]

January 27, 2026

[edit]

January 26, 2026

[edit]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

January 24, 2026

[edit]

January 23, 2026

[edit]

January 22, 2026

[edit]

January 21, 2026

[edit]

January 20, 2026

[edit]

January 12, 2026

[edit]

January 11, 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:A_Man_Washing_His_Hands_Using_a_Hand_Pump-070A6382.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Man Washing His Hands Using a Hand Pump --Bijay Chaurasia 07:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Colors look unnatural/overprocessed. --Aciarium 09:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think colours are natural. Good composition with borderline but good enough sharpness. --Augustgeyler 10:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect, but good enough --George Chernilevsky 15:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The light is that of a late afternoon (or of a high latitude country) in winter: the shadows are long, the colours are warm. Good quality also for me. --Harlock81 13:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 13:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8435.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arion assis sur le dauphin by Ernest-Eugène Hiolle in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not really sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek 06:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. The same level of detail as the others in the serie. --Sebring12Hrs 12:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 12:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lukyantsevo_Lukianov_Monastery_Nativity_of_the_Virgin_Mary_Cathedral_2024-05-01_0037.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. Lukyantsevo, Aleksandrovsky District, Vladimir Oblast. --Mike1979 Russia 06:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The branches are reaching too far into the subject, rather distracting. --Aciarium 07:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree --Sebring12Hrs 07:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support These branches do not obscure the cathedral and, moreover, add expressiveness to the picture. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Fricka,_cerkiew_(HB7).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Navy_Day_Sevastopol_2012_G40.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Russian fireboat PZhK-37 -- George Chernilevsky 21:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a big fan of the composition. Looks unbalanced since the boat is in the center of the image, rather than on the left side. --Aciarium 15:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let's discuss, this is matter of taste --George Chernilevsky 16:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Новгородский_кремль_Башни_01.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment The left side of tower is parallel to the frame. The whole fortification with its towers stands on hill, so from one ot another point of view its towers sometimes look tilted. See the category of this tower and another shot to compare. --Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Ship_light_trail,_near_House_on_Embankment_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Ship light trail, near House on Embankment --Юрий Д.К. 06:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The passing ship is rather obstructing and too dominant in the composition. --Aciarium 15:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  CommentI disagree, this image itself about passing ship and nothing else. --Юрий Д.К. 15:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The light trail is unrecognizable as a ship or boat. In turn, the motion blur becomes a wall of light and divides the image. Motion blur of an unrecognizable subject can be effective as artistic expression, but for me that’s not present in this composition. In addition, the sky is noisy and the lights on the building are blown out. There’s a category of QI light trail images that I believe set a high standard.--E bailey 15:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Моховая_27-29,_ограда01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pillar of fence of former "Russia" Insurance company buildings, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good scene but  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 22:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The object is very close so we can see the overall structure of the surface. But looking closer reveals loss of information in the texture itself. The structure looks highly compressed and / or processed which is very unusual comparing to most of your nominations. --Augustgeyler 10:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for explanation. It's quite old picture taken by quite old camera :) I decided to nominate it because I liked the perspective and the flagpole holder, which looks good here. But maybe that's not enough. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Igreja_do_Santo_Condestável_with_a_bare_tree_in_the_foreground,_Campo_de_Ourique,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Igreja do Santo Condestável with a bare tree in the foreground, Campo de Ourique, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition looks unbalanced. Also, chromatic aberration in the branches --Aciarium 15:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, I've uploaded a new version which hopefully has no more traces of chromatic aberration. I would appreciate more comments on the composition: personally, I like how the tilted tree and the couple of pigeons break an otherwise symmetrical composition --Julesvernex2 22:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photographic technique is good: the picture is sharp, several details of the tree are shown, but the composition does not work also for me, sorry. The tree is cut, as well as the windows of the first floor. The most interesting architectural element is the coat of arms over the main door, but it is partially covered by the branches of the tree. The pigeons are too small to result really functional in the composition. --Harlock81 13:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 13:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Auxerre_-_Fontaine_Cadet_Roussel_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Auxerre (Yonne, France) - Cadet Roussel fountain --Benjism89 07:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lighting is not good - dark foreground, bright background. As a result, the image looks rather flat overall. --Aciarium 07:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline indeed. But sharp to me, the compo isn't bad. --Sebring12Hrs 19:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Prechistenskaya_Embankment,_Shelter_for_children's_labor_cooperatives.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Prechistenskaya Embankment, Shelter for children's labor cooperatives --Юрий Д.К. 00:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Overall good, but somehow distorted a bit (похоже, это был снимок под углом. но вы его выпрямили, поэтому здания стоят прямо, а вот набережная кривая, посмотрите на отверстие справа. Хорошо бы это как-то отрегулировать) --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Ok. I request more opinions what wrong with the image --Юрий Д.К. 05:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:SBB_RABe_512_IR-Dosto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SBB RABe 512 IR-Dosto in service as IR37 towards Zurich Central Station between Aarau and Rupperswil --Chme82 19:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I really want to like this photo, but the train is just too blurry for QI. --AVDLCZ 20:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am submitting my image for discussion. I would like to mention that this image shows a train passing by at approximately 100 km/h. In order to capture the movement of the train, I have followed the train with the camera by using a relatively long exposure time during the shot. Creating such a shot is challenging, which is why the result cannot be compared to a normal shot in terms of motion blur. I therefore believe that my image meets the requirements for a quality image. The decision is yours, of course. Thank you. Chme82 21:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To blurry --Vitorperrut555 02:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "In order to capture the movement of the train" there are two options, you either follow the train and then you have a sharp train in front of a blurry background, or you don't and then you have a blurry train in front of a sharp background. But here it didn't work out and you have a blurry train in front of a blurry background. --Plozessor 06:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Since the central part of the train is sharp enough and all the motion blur around was intentional to show the fast movement I think it can be considered QI. --Augustgeyler 11:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Question How many photos are used to create the image? --Smial 17:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Smial: I don't entirely understand your question. My image consists of a single photograph. It is not a combination of several images. Chme82 19:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Plozessor: I followed the train during the shot. I cannot agree with you, that the result shows a blurry train and a blurry background. The train has significantly more detail than the background. I've already made several shots like this of trains in motion and think it's impossible to get every bit of a train moving that fast and that close completely sharp without using special equipment (e.g. the camera moving on a rail). Chme82 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I understand, still IMO the train is not sharp enough. Probably you didn't do anything wrong - if it is not possible to take an image meeting QI standards without special equipment then you cannot take a QI without special equipment. --Plozessor 07:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem. Thank you for your feedback. I've just noticed that you've have supported another image of a moving train that I've taken on that day. I must admit that this picture is better than this actual one. Chme82 10:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lindau,_Neuer_Leuchturm_D-7-76-116-329_IMG_92222025-08-18_17.24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lindau in Germany-Bavaria, light house (Neuer Leuchturm) --Michielverbeek 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I get the idea for the composition, but the water surface is not smooth enough, so composition seems off. Also, the ship on the left has overexposed areas. --Aciarium 14:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Added implicit oppose. --Plozessor 06:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 22:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture. --Plozessor 06:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Aciarium. The composition is not working here with that ship nearly cut off on the very left. --Augustgeyler 12:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The composition feels off to me, otherwise it's a fine picture. --AVDLCZ 13:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks for reviews, I have made ✓ Done more space at the left crop --Michielverbeek 09:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 12:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lindau,_Neuer_Leuchturm_D-7-76-116-329_IMG_9226_2025-08-18_17.26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lindau in Germany-Bavaria, light house (Neuer Leuchturm) --Michielverbeek 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment CCW tilted --George Chernilevsky 08:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George. Also, you nominated three almost identical images. --Aciarium 14:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 22:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George. --Augustgeyler 11:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it possible to crop the right thing ? See note. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 21:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for reviews, I ✓ Done made a rotation and improve the right crop --Michielverbeek 08:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 13:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lindau,_Neuer_Leuchturm_D-7-76-116-329_IMG_9241_2025-08-18_17.45.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lindau in Germany-Bavaria, light house (Neuer Leuchturm) --Michielverbeek 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Water not smooth enough for the composition to make sense. --Aciarium 14:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 22:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. -- XRay 07:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 07:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lindau,_Neuer_Leuchturm_D-7-76-116-329_IMG_9244_2025-08-18_20.03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lindau in Germany-Bavaria, light house (Neuer Leuchturm) --Michielverbeek 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Water not smooth enough for the composition to make sense. --Aciarium 15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 22:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:678A012_Schild_beim_ehemaligen_Kalksteinbruch_bei_Weyer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Warning sign at the former limestone quarry near Weyer (Gochsheim) --Plozessor 04:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Greens look unnatural, the position of the sign is off in the composition --Aciarium 12:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Plozessor 13:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely ok to me, very good picture and colors, well exposed.... --Sebring12Hrs 17:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seems overprocessed. Lots of UFOs in the sky, and some weird patterns. --Smial 17:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok for me. Flying objects in the sky are likely insects Юрий Д.К. 06:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it was a day with masses of insects. --Plozessor 11:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lecce_-_Santa_Croce_-_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lecce - Santa Croce (by Benjism89) --Sebring12Hrs 00:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very distorted with upper part looks wider and higher than the bottom part which is not true --Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me, the PC is very well done. --Tournasol7 02:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think PC is overdone. --Екатерина Борисова 03:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly too heavy PC leading to unrealistic proportions. Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 12:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support  Comment Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 12:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment You voted already ;) --Sebring12Hrs 21:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, sorry, Tournasol7 01:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ekaterina, Augustgeyler – Julian Lupyan 22:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 22:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Columns_of_Basilica_Aemilia_in_Rome_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Columns of Basilica Aemilia – Forum Romanum in Rome, Lazio, Italy. --Tournasol7 01:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots needs to be removed. --Augustgeyler 02:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, dust spots removed. --Tournasol7 12:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now --Smial 13:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 13:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Figura_św._Jana_Napomucena_w_Radkowie_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination John of Nepomuk statue in Radków by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 17:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 09:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition is not suitable for the main object. The head is "cutt-off" by the horizontal line in the background. --Augustgeyler 02:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Smial 13:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Plain_Prinia_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_39.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plain Prinia (Prinia inornata) in Baruipur, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 15:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Herpking 15:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • What is the thin dark curved object? near the beak? --Pdanese 18:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now per the question by Pdanese (which is not a vote). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail could be better as well. --Aciarium 15:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC01023_Alfa_Romeo_Giulia,_Carabinieri_Nucleo_Operativo_Radiomobile,_Rear_Left,_Overhead_View.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An Alfa Romeo Giulia of the Italian Carabinieri's department Nucleo Operativo Radiomobile --Aciarium 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Deformed, lacks PC --Poco a poco 17:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment This perspective was deliberately choosen in order to show more of the vehicle's roof. At such a tilted angle, PC would lead to an actually deformed subject. Discussion please. (This is what it would look like with PC)--Aciarium 18:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Wide angle shot from above uses perspective intentionally. --Augustgeyler 18:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, look unnatural -- George Chernilevsky 08:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- George Chernilevsky 08:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC00988_Jeep_Renegade,_Polizia_Penitenziaria,_Front_Right.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Jeep Renegade of the Italian Polizia Penitenziaria --Aciarium 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 13:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks PC --Poco a poco 17:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would look distorted with PC at this angle. --Aciarium 18:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, look unnatural -- George Chernilevsky 08:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- George Chernilevsky 08:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Construction_of_the_S7_expressway_junction,_Kocmyrzowska_street._December_19,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction of the S7 expressway junction, Kocmyrzowska Street, December 19, 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 07:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not eligible for QI. Too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better, but the pixels you wasted at the top are missing at the bottom. It would have been better to hold the camera lower down when taking such a photo. --Milseburg (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too downscaled, colour channel clipping in the sky. --Smial 14:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Construction_of_the_S7_expressway_junction,_Kocmyrzowska_street,_December_19,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction of the S7 expressway junction, Kocmyrzowska Street, December 19, 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 07:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not eligible for QI. Too much empty blue sky. Also tilted. --Milseburg 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. --Aciarium 14:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no problem with the sky, but too strong donwscaling. --Smial 14:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 14:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Milky_way_as_seen_from_Satsar_camsite,Ganderbal_district,_Kashmir_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milky way as seen from Satsar camsite,Ganderbal district, Kashmir, India. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky seems blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The stars are sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 10:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky looks mushy. --Aciarium 14:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Aciarium 14:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Asti_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 11:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Another badly deformed by PC building. The lower part is strictly perpendicular to the ground, but the turrets at the top are tilted to the left, the right tower is distorted at the top, the left portal is shown at an angle, and the right one is not, which is unnatural for perspective photography. In addition, the entire top is blurred and partially overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Aciarium 11:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina + washed out colors – Julian Lupyan 22:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 22:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_zamkowy_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(02).jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 12:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова: This isn't against the rules here; you can also nominate other users' photos. The only rule is that one user can nominate no more than five photos per day. --Jacek Halicki 15:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I know that. But when people nominate other people's photos as their own, it looks, unfortunately, like an intention to somehow circumvent the rules. That's exactly what I meant. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   – Екатерина Борисова 04:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова: This isn't against the rules here; you can also nominate other users' photos. The only rule is that one user can nominate no more than five photos per day. --Jacek Halicki 15:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I know that. But when people nominate other people's photos as their own, it looks, unfortunately, like an intention to somehow circumvent the rules. That's exactly what I meant. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 23 Jan → Sat 31 Jan
  • Sat 24 Jan → Sun 01 Feb
  • Sun 25 Jan → Mon 02 Feb
  • Mon 26 Jan → Tue 03 Feb
  • Tue 27 Jan → Wed 04 Feb
  • Wed 28 Jan → Thu 05 Feb
  • Thu 29 Jan → Fri 06 Feb
  • Fri 30 Jan → Sat 07 Feb
  • Sat 31 Jan → Sun 08 Feb