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 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 27 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 13:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


August 27, 2025

[edit]

August 26, 2025

[edit]

August 25, 2025

[edit]

August 24, 2025

[edit]

August 23, 2025

[edit]

August 22, 2025

[edit]

August 21, 2025

[edit]

August 20, 2025

[edit]

August 19, 2025

[edit]

August 18, 2025

[edit]

August 17, 2025

[edit]

August 16, 2025

[edit]

August 15, 2025

[edit]

August 14, 2025

[edit]

August 13, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:Воробьи_Эрарты_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too many distracting elements IMO --MB-one 12:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • In the original nomination I emphasized what is still relevant: this photo is not about what a sparrow looks like, but about an urban sparrow in a certain real environment. I kindly ask for discussion. --Lvova 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose, sorry. I'm speechless. --Lmbuga 17:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Cluttered surroundings, a small bird in comparison to the frame, and partially obscured. --Jakubhal 22:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Normally, I'm a fan of capturing subjects in their natural environments, but in this case the actual subject is obscured by a disturbing foreground object.--Peulle 08:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Воробьи_Эрарты_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Would crop a bit tighter around the bird. Otherwise very good --MB-one 12:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too little subject. It needs a crop and the crop can't be QI IMO --Lmbuga 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions, disagree with every word. --Lvova 19:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Jakubhal 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose The only real problem with this one is the composition, which looks a bit haphazard, taken quickly through a window rather than thoughtfully composed. The bird itself is fine, but cropping would cause an angle cut, which doesn't work. Another thing I'll mention from a procedural perspective is that there are several very similar images here, and I've seen other users commenting in the past that a nominator should choose the best image to nominate and leave the others. Also, I'm not a fan of renominating images just because they didn't get a review last time, especially without rework.--Peulle 08:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Воробьи_Эрарты_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Occasional picture (random). Needs to be cropped. Bad perspective. Detail with this size? Nothing is good and the composition is terrible--Lmbuga 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions, disagree with every word. --Lvova 19:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Jakubhal 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose The only real problem with this one is the composition, which looks a bit haphazard, taken quickly through a window rather than thoughtfully composed. The bird itself is fine, but cropping would cause an angle cut, which doesn't work. Another thing I'll mention from a procedural perspective is that there are several very similar images here, and I've seen other users commenting in the past that a nominator should choose the best image to nominate and leave the others. Also, I'm not a fan of renominating images just because they didn't get a review last time, especially without rework.--Peulle 08:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Воробьи_Эрарты_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Occasional picture (random). Needs to be cropped. Bad perspective. Detail with this size? Nothing is good and the composition is terrible --Lmbuga 17:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions, disagree with every word. --Lvova 19:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Jakubhal 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose The only real problem with this one is the composition, which looks a bit haphazard, taken quickly through a window rather than thoughtfully composed. The bird itself is fine, but cropping would cause an angle cut, which doesn't work. Another thing I'll mention from a procedural perspective is that there are several very similar images here, and I've seen other users commenting in the past that a nominator should choose the best image to nominate and leave the others. Also, I'm not a fan of renominating images just because they didn't get a review last time, especially without rework.--Peulle 08:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Воробьи_Эрарты_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Occasional picture (random). Needs to be cropped. Bad perspective. Detail with this size? Nothing is good and the composition is terrible --Lmbuga 17:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions, disagree with every word. --Lvova 19:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • It seems I've downvoted (declined) a lot of photos, but I've downvoted (declined) four that are identical. --Lmbuga 21:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Jakubhal 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose The only real problem with this one is the composition, which looks a bit haphazard, taken quickly through a window rather than thoughtfully composed. The bird itself is fine, but cropping would cause an angle cut, which doesn't work. Another thing I'll mention from a procedural perspective is that there are several very similar images here, and I've seen other users commenting in the past that a nominator should choose the best image to nominate and leave the others. Also, I'm not a fan of renominating images just because they didn't get a review last time, especially without rework.--Peulle (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not a fan of renominating images just because they didn't get a review last time - it is more than normal here, but of course you can not do it, just strange if you base your voice on such things that unrelated to quality. Let me give you a hint: regularly I and others comment pictures instead of ignoring them to give ideas about rework, and yes, renominating after such comments can be strange, but if there were no comments - it is normal to expect that it just didn't get attention, I have a lot of pictures that became QI from the 2nd nomination. a nominator should choose the best image to nominate and leave the others - it is normal for FI, but here it was one rare person, and he received the same reply: it is normal here. taken quickly through a window - you didn't guess, and yes, the bird is fine, and other things give nice geometry. Lvova 17:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Castelnuovo_Berardenga_-_Decoro_urbano.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castelnuovo Berardenga - Urban decoration composed of a cascade of starry sky flowers and an antique wagon wheel.-Anna.Massini 11:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not enough for QI. The flowers, especially the upper ones, are blurry. The stones above the flowers are blown out and lack detail. --Lmbuga 17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Yes, overall it's a little too bright, and general sharpness could be better. But at least the colors, especially in the red window shutters, don't look unnatural, and the lighting and composition are good. Usable up to A4 size. --Smial 18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Thank you. The colors are not retouched, it's just that the sun was shining brightly on the facade. Anna.Massini 19:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Anna.Massini 19:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini

  •  Support One of the better smartphone pictures here, not perfect but over the bar for me. Interesting composition compensates for the minor technical deficits. --Plozessor 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Carcasse_de_Lyristes_plebejus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Carcasse de Lyristes plebejus forêt de Rades. By User:Smailtn --TOUMOU 10:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 10:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown out head and other areas --Lmbuga 20:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per lmbuga. --Smial 17:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Chenille_sphix_tête_de_mort.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chenille sphinx tête de mort. By User:Smailtn --TOUMOU 10:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, blurry (the head is blurry). Green halo on the head. Nothing to indicate QI IMO. --Lmbuga 18:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree about the blurry head. Lvova 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Mucem_Marseille_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations is a national museum located in Marseille, FranceI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Houss 2020 10:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Come on... Why don't you correct the perspective ? --Sebring12Hrs 15:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strangely dull colors, looks almost like a failed tone mapping. Perspective not corrected. Sharpening and denoising interfere with each other. I don't think this can be improved significantly. --Smial 17:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I get the impression that some colleagues upload anything, regardless of how it looks. Maybe someone will vote "Pro" so the image gets an award. -- Spurzem 10:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial.--Peulle 10:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Aberlour_Highland_March_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On 2 August 2025, the ceremonial highland marching band went across the main road of Aberlour to mark the beginning of the Aberlour highland games. --TheBritinator 00:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit noisy and slightly blurry towards the edges, though I think that it's the best the camera can do. (Wondering why you are still using a camera from 2008 in 2025 though. And as you are using Photoshop, you could try AI denoising on the raw file.) But in total still a very good picture. --Plozessor 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CAs at left. --Sebring12Hrs 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose … and too dark. -- Spurzem 10:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Clothes_lines_on_building_nearby_Jardim_Fernando_Pessa,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clothes lines on building nearby Jardim Fernando Pessa, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 03:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --TheBritinator 00:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree, dappled lighting often makes for a more engaging composition. In this case, it highlights the dissonance of having clothes drying in the shade while the clothes lines under the sun are empty --Julesvernex2 06:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like an effect from shadows. Lvova 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Cvmontuy 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lvova. --Plozessor 03:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very disturbing shadows -- Spurzem 10:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Garmouth_Spey_Viaduct.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Spey Viaduct bridge was formerly part of the Garmouth railway track which closed in 1968. -- TheBritinator, 15:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CAs at left on the bridge. --Sebring12Hrs 15:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Cvmontuy 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 10:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cvmontuy 07:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Coleus_neochilus_at_the_Municipal_Chamber_of_Porto_Alegre.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coleus neochilus at the Municipal Chamber of Porto AlegreI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Heylenny 17:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the top parts of the inflorescences are quite blurry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Not a problem at all... --Heylenny 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert, lack of DoF, flowers are oof. --Plozessor 03:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Sea_fig.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sea fig plant (Carpobrotus chilensis) in Santa Catarina, BrazilI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Heylenny 17:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Wym 'not very sharp'? Only the background is blured. --Heylenny 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, not sharp enough and noisy in dark areas. Lvova 17:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange artifacts by denoising, sharpening, and clipping colour channels in the blossom. Yes, intense reds are difficult for most digital sensors. --Smial 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree that blurry background is irrelevant (or even desired), but large parts of the blossom without any detail, and there are strange effects probably from the smartphone's processing. --Plozessor 04:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor.--Peulle 10:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --[[[User:Plozessor|Plozessor]] 04:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Party_red_plastic_cup.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Party red plastic cup.--Heylenny 17:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  OpposeLack of Details --Berthold Werner 15:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I cropped a little. Is it better? --Heylenny 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, bad composition, nothing really sharp besides the upper flash reflections. --Smial 17:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, plus noise. --Plozessor 04:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Weesenstein_(August_2024)_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schloss Weesenstein: Schlosspark. --Romzig 18:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 21:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just saw blue halos in the top right corner --Lmbuga 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment And left trees are leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Lmbuga 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Рябина_в_августе_в_Санкт-Петербурге_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sorbus in Saint Petersburg --Lvova 09:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 05:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost nothing in focus. Needs to be cropped. Very poor composition. --Lmbuga 21:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Sütigerwis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A collection of houses in Sütigerwis, a hamlet of Triesenberg, Liechtenstein. -- TheBritinator 00:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, noise, CAs, perspective distortion. --Lmbuga 00:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    I have modified the image to address the perspective distortion but I really can't say I see much in the way of noise or CAs. Nevertheless, I tried to fix them too. --TheBritinator 01:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Noise is the least important. Chromatic aberration still exists, and perspective correction is still necessary, IMO. Let others have their say. Thanks for your pictures. --Lmbuga 02:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Sadar_Ghat,The_Heartbeat_of_Dhaka's_River_Life_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sadar Ghat, located on the banks of the Buriganga River in Dhaka, is one of the busiest and most iconic river ports in Bangladesh. Serving as a major transportation hub, it connects the capital with numerous southern districts via hundreds of passenger and cargo boats that come and go daily. The area is always alive with activity—vendors selling goods, passengers boarding launches, and workers loading and unloading cargo—offering a vivid glimpse into the everyday hustle of river life. Rich in history and culture, Sadar Ghat reflects both the challenges and energy of urban life in Dhaka.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media has been uploaded as a part of Project Korikath --A S M Jobaer 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 17:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Оversaturated and overprocessed, very bad white balance (too much green and yellow). Looks completely unnatural --George Chernilevsky 17:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark for my personal taste, and oversharpened, but apart from that, clearly wrong color balance. --Plozessor 11:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Hafen,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_(LRM_20240106_140609).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ribnitz harbour in Winter --MB-one 12:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Substandard sharpness. Dull framing: horizont through the middle. --Grand-Duc 20:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done improved exposure, contrast, sharpness and crop --MB-one 12:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:View_of_Triesenberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An unobstructed view of the main section of Triesenberg, Liechtenstein. -- TheBritinator, 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Not great sharpness, but overall good quality. --E bailey 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The noise should be reduced --Ermell 19:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And blurry. --Sebring12Hrs 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Laufach_ND05278_F.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Laufach, tree group 671N0062/ND-05278 'Kastanienbaum' (right) in LSG-00561.01 'LSG innerhalb des Naturparks Spessart (ehemals Schutzzone)' --KaiBorgeest 20:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry: blurred, too low sharpness for QI, insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 16:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. It is a creative technique to keep the motif sharp and the foreground soft. And the motiv is absolutely crisp, you can count the leaves. --KaiBorgeest 21:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the trees are the main subject, why is there so much unnecessary foreground in the picture? --Syntaxys 04:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
 Comment In the featured pictures gallery you can learn a lot about advanced image composition. Let's take this featured phot as an example: [1]. There is a lot of soft foreground. The photo would lose it's deepness with a sharp foreground. And the rock without foreground would be quite boring. You find many other examples particularly in the Places/Natural Gallery there. Such compositions are a bit more than just maximum DOF from the feet to the sky oder motif without any environment--KaiBorgeest 14:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This "DOF" looks artificial. --Smial 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Trees are oversharpened and blurry at the same time, and also have CA's. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_basking_of_Pseudergolis_wedah_(Kollar,_1844)_-_Tabby_WLB_MG_4768.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing basking of Pseudergolis wedah (Kollar, 1844) - TabbyI, : --SVKMBFLY 06:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Too dark. --Ermell 15:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment
    Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support After categorization over the bar for me. --Lvova 13:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. Sorry. --Ermell 20:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable lighting --Milseburg 13:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem. The level of detail is good. --MB-one 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the best lightning but I agree the details are good. I think it would be better to have some geographical category too though. --Phyrexian 11:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Wikimania_2025_—_Day_0_049.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wikimania 2025 — Day 0I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:نعيم قربوسي --Houss 2020 18:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality (despite the hand) --MB-one 15:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient description and categorization (who is depicted in the image?) --Sandro Halank 22:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Литейный_37,_ограда01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fence of Pashkov house garden, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only the first part is sharp, the distant part is blurred. Smaller aperture and different focus point would help. --Tagooty 03:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • In many discussions here, many users have said that the distant part of a photo doesn't have to be sharp. So I won't argue, but I'd like to hear other opinions now too. --Екатерина Борисова 04:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree: a shallower depth of field is an established and useful compositional technique. In this case, it progressively blurs a repeating pattern, creating a nice 3D effect. With small sensors one should also be wary of using small apertures: f/4 in a 1/2.5" sensor is the full-frame equivalent of f/24, a higher f-number would decrease image quality due to diffraction even further --Julesvernex2 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Екатерина Борисова, one small piece of feedback: if you slightly crop the left of the image you can get rid of that distracting sliver of sunlit wall --Julesvernex2 06:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, but minor CAs IMO (shadows on the left side and bottom left side)--Lmbuga 01:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't have any issue with the doF and the blurred left side background, but the issue is the processing of the camera which is very poor. The sharpness is really lost at left. --Sebring12Hrs 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_basking_position_of_Parasarpa_zayla_Westwood,_1850-_Bicolor_Commodore_D.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parasarpa zayla Westwood, 1850- Bicolor Commodore. By User:Subhendukhan --Atudu 06:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Eyes not sharp. Sorry. --Ermell 08:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see how the eyes in particular are unsharp. Overall sharpness level is acceptable for a subject of this size. Let's discuss this. --ReneeWrites 08:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per ReneeWrites. --MB-one 12:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 12:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_nectaring_of_Pieris_canidia_(Linnaeus,_1768)_-_Asian_Cabbage_White_WLB_DSC9655.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing nectaring of Pieris canidia (Linnaeus, 1768) - Asian Cabbage WhiteI,: --SVKMBFLY 06:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 06:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    Don't like background noise now. Lvova 13:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Categories are missing.--Ermell 20:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lvova. --MB-one 12:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 12:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Abejarucos_chico_(Merops_pusillus),_reserva_natural_Masái_Mara,_Kenia,_2024-05-20,_DD_105.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus), Masai Mara, Kenya --Poco a poco 05:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the subject is blurry. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Not so sure about that, I applied some sharpening, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss in CR as you didn't give me a chance to improve it prior to declining it --Poco a poco 19:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed with Sebring12Hrs ReneeWrites 23:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tisha Mukherjee; sorry. Nice birds, but this is a 3.5 MPx image from a 50 MPx camera and the birds are a rather small part of the image. The bird in front looks especially blurry with lack of details. This is slightly below the bar for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Detail is poor--Lmbuga 20:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. Lvova 17:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 17:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bitonto_-_Guglia_dell'Immacolata_&_Concattedrale_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bitonto (Apulia, Italy) - The Immaculate Conception column and the Southern façade of the Saint Valentine co-cathedral --Benjism89 04:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The column is smooth and distorted. --Lvova 14:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pls discuss. --Lvova 10:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp column.--Ermell 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fact is that the column and the statue on it next to the façade are the main subjects in this image, so this area absolutely has to be in focus. It's still a good image for Wiki*, but not good enough for QI, sorry. --Syntaxys 03:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose New review: You're right, column not in focus--Lmbuga 01:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 19 Aug → Wed 27 Aug
  • Wed 20 Aug → Thu 28 Aug
  • Thu 21 Aug → Fri 29 Aug
  • Fri 22 Aug → Sat 30 Aug
  • Sat 23 Aug → Sun 31 Aug
  • Sun 24 Aug → Mon 01 Sep
  • Mon 25 Aug → Tue 02 Sep
  • Tue 26 Aug → Wed 03 Sep
  • Wed 27 Aug → Thu 04 Sep