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 October 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 October 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 October 24 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]] 12:42, 24 October 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).


October 24, 2025

[edit]

October 23, 2025

[edit]

October 22, 2025

[edit]

October 21, 2025

[edit]

October 20, 2025

[edit]

October 19, 2025

[edit]

October 18, 2025

[edit]

October 17, 2025

[edit]

October 16, 2025

[edit]

October 15, 2025

[edit]

October 14, 2025

[edit]

October 13, 2025

[edit]

October 12, 2025

[edit]

October 11, 2025

[edit]

October 9, 2025

[edit]

October 4, 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:Buxoro_arki._Arxeologik_muzey_ichki_bezaklaridan_biri_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination One of the wall decorations of the Subhonquli Khan Mosque. Bukhara, Uzbekistan --Panpanchik 01:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very good picture, but needs more specific description. This is not a mosque, but something IN a mosque. --Plozessor 03:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Description is ok now. Btw, this should not have landed here in discussions as I hadn't declined it, just commented. --Plozessor 05:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 12:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini

File:Unidentified_Russula_Bruderwald-20251017-RM-170249.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified mushroom (Russula) in the Bruderwald forest in Bamberg. Focus stack of 10 images. --Ermell 06:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporary oppose. Wrong identification. This is even not Russula, but rather Cortinariaceae, because stem is fibrous. Possible Calonarius splendens. --George Chernilevsky 18:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_Tilia_tree.jpg

[edit]

File:Bytom_Rozbark_MTW_100.110_778_2021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MTW 100.110 series train, nr 778 (PKP Energetyka SA) in Bytom. --Gower 20:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It's tilted, the shadows are too dark and it's not sharp enough for QI. --JoachimKohler-HB 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • tilt is intentional because of leaning train on tracks --Gower 15:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The houses are leaning.--Peulle 11:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Thessaloniki_during_CEEM_2025_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pedestrian zone in Thessaloniki. I prefer not to crop to show this empty sunny area. --Lvova 09:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • With that crop, I'll have to vote  Oppose. Send to CR, if you change your mind. --MB-one 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm sending to CR without changing my mind. --Lvova 16:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know how Lvova do it with her smartphone, but everything is sharp here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Tends to suggest that smartphones are generally less good than cameras. The quality of the One Plus 13 is very impressive to me. Good job. --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand the intended purpose, but the composition of the image is unbalanced. Furthermore, there is no meaningful description of the image, and the image sharpness is only mediocre. --Smial 11:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Параклис_во_Тресонче_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Petka Church in the village Tresonče. By User:Petrovskyz --Lvova 07:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The wall of the house is blurred at right, and the background is blurres too, look at the trees. --Sebring12Hrs 11:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not too bothered about the background, but the house not being sharp is a problem, since it's the subject.--Peulle 11:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Horrible bokeh, but sharpness is good enough (A4 print size criterion). --Smial 11:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-05-25_RLP-Tag_Neustadt_018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination German Flower Fairy 2024/25: Anne-Marie Bals. By --Ahmet Düz 04:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A little bit soft, but good overall. --Lvova 22:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped part of the hands and too strong a contrast between light and dark areas, with the eyes in deep shadow --Jakubhal 04:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Crop is ok IMO. But especially the face is too dark at the moment. Should be easily fixable.  Oppose for now. --MB-one 13:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MB-one. --Milseburg 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal. Very unfortunate lighting. --Smial 11:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Салоники,_люк_на_Мегалу_Александру_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover at Megalou Alexandrou Avenue. Thessaloniki, Greece. --Красный 01:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Seriously, you don't see it is blurred ? --Sebring12Hrs 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per sebring12hrs. Why f/3.5 (near full open), why 1/400s for the static object, why above ISO100? --Smial 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it is out of focus and slightly oversharpened. And per Smial. --LexKurochkin 07:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 10:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_рудбекия_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rudbeckia laciniata in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 22:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too messy composition for me, two species together almost mixed. Flowers aren't very detailed. --Gower 06:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    "two species together" as an argument; I cannot read it, stop it. --Lvova 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    Guidelines: „Foreground and background objects should not be distracting” --Gower 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is good to me here. And the sharpness acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 06:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness rather below the bar, overexposed areas. And Gower's argument is valid, the description should mention both species --Poco a poco 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Gower's argument was about something else, but I've improved the description as far as you're not satisfied with categories only. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  •  Support Very nice composition, good lighting, acceptabel sharpness, and now also good image description ;-) --Smial 11:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 14:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Flamencos_enanos_(Phoeniconaias_minor),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lesser flamingos (Phoeniconaias minor), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for resting birds. --E bailey 15:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Sharpened why do you force me to move to CR after an improvement instead of leaving a comment asking for improvement, what is the hurry to decline images that can be easily improved? Don't get it. --Poco a poco 11:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Tuxyso 10:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 15:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --AuHaidhausen 07:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 10:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:BE_SERAI_Different_valve_fittings_in_an_abandoned_fabric.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Valves in an abandoned factory --Grunpfnul 14:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand the concept but only the valve taps are in focus. --Gower 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
opposing vote assumed, otherwise the image will be promoted.--Peulle 07:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • So go to CR... --Sebring12Hrs 12:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Usage of selective focus. QI for me. --Tuxyso 10:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 10:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Punakha_Dzong_behind_vegetation.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Punakha Dzong --CreativeC 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support A horse is cut, but it's absolutely not the first thing we see there, so QI. --Lvova 11:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Cut off head of the horse spoils the image though this horse is not the main subject. Let's hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 22:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, that is an unfortunate crop. Easily rectified by cropping out the horses entirely. After that it should be good enough for QI.--Peulle 07:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beside the cut horse head a nice photo, but the cut spoils too much imho. --Tuxyso (talk)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 10:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Entrance_archway_to_the_Ranakpur_temple.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance archway to the Ranakpur temple --CreativeC 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 11:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so bad, but the edges are a bit blurred, especially at left and the crop is borderline. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 12:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI wish the symmetry was dealt better but otherwise OK to me. --UnpetitproleX 02:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 10:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Hillesheim,_Stadtbefestigung_Dm_en_de_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Martin_Dm_IMG_5151_2024-08-31_12.00.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hillesheim in Germany-RP, town fortifications and the catholic church Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin --Michielverbeek 05:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The image is QI, but the family should be cloned out IMO. --Syntaxys 05:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    Famils isnt't very distracting, and no personality rights violated due to resolution of faces. --Gower 07:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    A discussion has already been started so I put to discuss --Michielverbeek 19:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    As this image is taken in Germany, it could be a legal problem with the peoples privacy, (see de:Recht am eigenen Bild (Deutschland)) --Syntaxys 06:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. I like the contrast between the family and the castle. It is not a postcard, it is an illustrative image. Lvova 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The family does not spoil the picture at all. -- Екатерина Борисова 23:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:ClapperRailStGeorgeIsland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clapper rail seen on St. George Island State Park --Polinova 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is noisy, the focus is on the bird's chest, not its head. --Lvova 10:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Reprocessed the raw file and reuploaded. What do you think now @Lvova --Polinova 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    I am not sure, but it has chances, so let's CR. --Lvova 10:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good retry, I think it's ok now, the noise disappears and the head is in focus. Let's see what others think now. --Sebring12Hrs 21:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the background is unecessarily sharpened. Could be fixed with a stronger mask before sharpening.  Oppose for now. --MB-one 13:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Muzeum_Książat_Czartoryjskich,_Ulica_Pijarska_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Muzeum Książat Czartoryjskich, Ulica Pijarska --Igor123121 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think you downscale your images to hide overprocessing artifacts, but it is not the good method to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done
  •  Support new version is improved. Good quality. --E bailey 04:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Removing support. On 2nd look, I see the issues described by Sebring12Hrs. --E bailey 18:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks details at right. --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Arco_Conmemorativo,_Plaza_Alonso_de_Ojeda_MG_491720250913.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial Arch, Alonso de Ojeda Square. --Rjcastillo 02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA sorry --Cvmontuy 04:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC))
  • ✓ Done new version. --Rjcastillo 22:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 10:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:DSC00752_San_Salvator_Laur.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Salvatore in Lauro --Rione Colonna 09:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Please make the image little bit sharp. Increase the highlight. --Brihaspati 10:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Thank you--Rione Colonna 11:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Color noise in the sky. --Sebring12Hrs 12:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    done.thank you --Rione Colonna 07:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Color noise is still there to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see it. --Rione Colonna 22:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no color noise (maybe simple noise or lack of sharpness), but very overprocessed now, the textures are washed, not details appear now. --Sebring12Hrs 11:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main entrance is totally blurry, stone textures are horrible partially. --Gower 19:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sebring12Hrs, Gower Check it out now, completely reworked. Thank you --Rione Colonna 18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Yes it's very good now ! Thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 11:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Gower Did you see that? Thank you.--Rione Colonna 13:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment new version is in some aspects worse than the original one: interior details deteriorated, compression "squares" on the doors are still visible; but sky is better --Gower 14:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree. We can see a lot of details now. This version is far away better than previous ones. --Sebring12Hrs 20:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Park_Strzelecki_w_Krakowie,_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Park Strzelecki w Krakowie --Igor123121 13:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    The metadata says 3,376 x 6,000 px and the picture is 2,100 × 3,732 pixels. The previous version had 3,376 × 6,000. --Lmbuga 14:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. Could you improve the perspective without downscale the image ? --Sebring12Hrs 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment When promoting the pictures, I should have mentioned that a new and correct version had been uploaded for all the pictures. I verified this when I promoted them. --Lmbuga (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfixed chromatic aberration (trees), monument is not in a parallel plane to the camera. --Gower 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfixed chromatic aberration --Lmbuga 21:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough (A4-size-criterion) --Smial 18:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Golf_IV_Cabriolet_IMG_3972_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Golf IV Cabriolet in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 08:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Image quality isn't impressive, lack of detail in dark spots (clipped) --Gower 17:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not impressive, but Ok IMHO --Velvet 09:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Implicit supporting vote clarified. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 05:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks a little noisy in places and not very sharp in places you can tell like tires. Invalid vote because of missing subscription. --Milseburg 14:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--AuHaidhausen 07:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 16 Oct → Fri 24 Oct
  • Fri 17 Oct → Sat 25 Oct
  • Sat 18 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
  • Sun 19 Oct → Mon 27 Oct
  • Mon 20 Oct → Tue 28 Oct
  • Tue 21 Oct → Wed 29 Oct
  • Wed 22 Oct → Thu 30 Oct
  • Thu 23 Oct → Fri 31 Oct
  • Fri 24 Oct → Sat 01 Nov